1. Appeal against rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC following a suicide and subsequent FIR involving allegations against family members. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 593
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Siddharth Udaiveer and Another – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No 657 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 2976 of 2020)
Decided On : 07-10-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail should be granted in a deserving case.
Anticipatory bail should be granted in a deserving case.
Subject
Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Denial – Deceased belonged to Dalit community while spouse was from a different caste – FIR was registered by Uncle of alleged victim, implicating almost entire family of deceased of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 506 of Indian Penal Code – Application for anticipatory bail was rejected by Sessions Court and by High Court by impugned order – High Court has granted anticipatory bail to sister of deceased and to two other members of family, both of whom are women – Having regard to all facts and circumstances, interim order of this Court should be confirmed and appellants should be granted benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal allowed. (Paras 3, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
By an order dated 13 February 2020, Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected application for anticipatory bail moved by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The first appellant is the brother-in-law, while the second appellant is the brother of deceased who is alleged to have committed suicide on 25 September 2019.
Findings of Court:
Since the proceedings in the criminal case emanating from the FIR are still pending, we are not expressing any view on the merits of the rival submissions. However, having regard to all the facts and circumstances, and having noticed the submissions, interim order of this Court should be confirmed and appellants should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Bhuwan Raj, Advocate
For Respondent(s):Krishnanand Pandeya, Advocate
For the Petitioner(s):Bhuwan Raj, Advocate
For Respondent(s):Krishnanand Pandeya, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend false implication based on the victim's majority and registered marriage; State argues that the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC justifies bail denial. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Court observed that while merits are not decided during pending proceedings, the specific facts and circumstances justify granting the benefit of anticipatory bail. (Para 7 )
4. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC may be granted based on a holistic evaluation of facts and circumstances without expressing a view on the merits. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; appellants granted anticipatory bail to be released on terms and conditions imposed by the trial court. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. When can anticipatory bail be granted without the court deciding the merits of the case?
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC can be granted when the court, after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, deems it appropriate, even if the criminal proceedings are still pending and the court does not express a view on the merits. (Para 7 )
7. What factors may the court consider when evaluating an application for anticipatory bail in cases of alleged false implication?
The court may consider the age and statements of the victim, the legality of the marriage, the sequence of events leading to the FIR, and whether other similarly situated family members have already been granted bail. (Para 3 , 5 )
8. Does a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC automatically justify the denial of anticipatory bail?
No. While the State may rely on a Section 164 CrPC statement to justify denial, the court evaluates this alongside other circumstances, such as the timing of the statement and the overall factual context, to determine if bail is warranted. (Para 6 , 7 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By an order dated 13 February 2020, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the application1 for anticipatory bail moved by the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
3. The first appellant is the brother-in-law, while the second appellant is the brother of Shivam, who is alleged to have committed suicide on 25 September 2019. The following circumstances have been highlighted in support of the application for anticipatory bail:
(i) On 23 August 2019, Shivam married the alleged victim, who is a major, at an Arya Samaj Mandir. The marriage was registered before the Registrar of Marriages at Lucknow on 24 August 2019. A copy of the registration certificate is Annexure P-1 to the paper book;
(ii) Shivam belonged to the Dalit community while the spouse was from a different caste;
(iii) On 24 August 2019, a First Information Report was registered as Case Crime No 1022/2019 by the uncle of the alleged victim, implicating almost the entire family of Shivam of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iv) On 25 September 2019, a joint petition2 was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shivam and the members of the family for quashing the FIR;
(v) The Allahabad High Court in its order dated 25 September 2019, noted that in pursuance of its directions, the victim had appeared in-person and “expressed her willingness” to go with her parents. The writ petition was dismissed on that ground without prejudice to the right of the petitioners before the High Court to apply for anticipatory bail;
(vi) Soon thereafter on 26 September 2019, Shivam committed suicide, which led to the registration of an FIR, being Case Crime No 0243/2019, at Police Station, Shahganj, Prayagraj;
(vii) On 9 October 2019, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which, inter alia, she has made allegations against Shivam and the appellants to these proceedings;
(viii) The application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, Jalaun on 4 December 2019 and by the High Court by the impugned order dated 13 February 2020; and
(ix) The High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the sister of the deceased on 14 January 2020 and to two other members of the family, both of whom are women, on 27 January 2020.
4. Notice was issued on the Special Leave Petition on 17 July 2020 and an interim stay of arrest was granted. In pursuance of the notice, Mr Krishnanand Pandey, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the State of UP and has filed a counter affidavit.
5. Mr Bhuwan Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, while highlighting the above circumstances, urged that a fit case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. He has submitted that the alleged victim, who is admittedly a major (according to her own statement under S 164), married Shivam. Moreover, though she was living in Orai, she had accompanied the deceased. The marriage was performed on 23 August 2019 at an Arya Samaj Mandir and was registered before the Registrar of Marriages at Lucknow on 24 August 2019. Learned counsel submitted that following the dismissal of the petition by the Allahabad High Court, when the alleged victim stated that she wished to go with her parents, the boy committed suicide and an FIR has been registered. He submitted that the statement under Section 164 CrPC has been recorded on 9 October 2019, nearly two weeks after the order of the Allahabad High Court and it is evident from the circumstances of the case that not only the deceased, but the appellants, who are the brother and the brother-in-law of the deceased, have been falsely implicated.
6. On the other hand, Mr Krishnanand Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of UP has placed reliance on the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC and submitted that the denial of anticipatory bail was ju
