The High Court's adjudication of the bail application violated settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions, including the conversion of the bail matter into a mini-trial and the disclosure of the victim's identity.

ORDER :

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.5391 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for the offences under Sections 4, 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by which the High Court granted bail to the accused (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 2”).

3. It is not required to go into the details of the instant case. However, we find it pertinent to mention brief facts, which are as follows. On 16.09.2017, an FIR, C.R No. 113/17 was lodged at Shahpur Police Station, Ahmadabad City against respondent no. 2, under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, by the Appellant, who is grandmother of the “victim”. The victim herein is a minor, aged around 7 years.

4. Respondent No. 2 was apprehended thereafter and Charge-Sheet was filed on 05.12.2017 for the offence mentioned in the FIR. Therein, respondent no. 2 approached the High Court for bail and the same was granted.

5. The Ld. counsel for the appellant as well as the State have brought to our notice that the present order of the High Court is in clear violation of the settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions. It was also contended that, while considering the bail application, the High Court traversed the settled principles of law. The Ld. Counsel for appellant has brought to our notice that the High Court directed accused-respondent no. 2 as well as the appellant, who is grandmother of the victim along with parents of the victim to undergo scientific tests viz., lie detector, brain mapping and Narco-Analysis. After receiving the reports of the same, it examined the same before enlarging respondent no. 2 on bail vide impugned order dated 27.04.2018. Further, it is also brought to our notice that the Ld. Judge has throughout the course of his order disclosed the identity of the “victim”.

6. Counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the respondent has already been enlarged on bail by the High Court, and thus, seeks non-interference by this Court.

7. Having heard the counsels for the parties, it is surprising to note the present approach adopted by the High Court while considering the bail application. The High Court ordering the abovementioned tests is not only in contravention to the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also violates statutory requirements. While adjudicating a bail application, S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the guiding principle wherein Court takes into consideration, inter alia, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual matrix, and therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. However, the court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police, or rather order specific tests as done in the present case.

8. In the instant case, by ordering the abovementioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini-trial indeed. This assumption of function of a trial court by the High Court is deprecated.

9. Apart from the above, the High Court stands in clear violation of the precedents of this Hon’ble Court and statutory prescriptions, by disclosing the name o