Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Sabita Paul – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1772 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14053 of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of – Prime accused has been charged under Sections 376, 354, 389, 506, and 120-B IPC and he has been granted anticipatory bail – Present appellant has been charged under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67A of Information and Technology Act, 2000 – Alleged act of instant appellant is inextricably bound to acts of prime accused – It is alleged that he had secured pictures of complainant, that were compromising in nature, which then instant appellant used to extort and to blackmail complainant – Grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right – Court is required to focus on role attached to accused whose application is under consideration – In the facts, prime accused who is alleged to have initially conducted blackmail, whom complainant is said to have paid ‘hush-money’ has been granted bail and role played by instant appellant was only to further alleged acts of her son – She has not acted independently, to further aggravate situation – Order granting anticipatory bail to instant appellant confirmed, setting aside order of cancellation of bail passed by Division Bench in impugned judgment and order. (Paras 7, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of such order of cancellation of granting anticipatory bail. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2023 had granted interim protection in favour of accused subject to all cooperating in investigation and trial. Instant appellant is in full compliance with such an order. It is not the case of respondents that post the grant of interim protection appellant, has, in any manner impeded the cause of justice.
Findings of Court:
Condition upon which this Court granted interim protection, which was that appellant would extend all cooperation in the investigation and trial still accompanies.
Result : Appeal allowed with observations.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On the basis of complaint filed by Smt. “X” (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), and pursuant to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, West Bengal, FIR No. 438 of 2022 dated 07.05.2022 was registered at Police Station, Siliguri, against two accused persons namely, Supratim Paul and his mother Sabita Paul. It is alleged that Supratim Paul, the neighbour of the complainant had discreetly taken photographs of the complainant without her knowledge or consent and that such photographs were obscene, indecent, salacious, and offensive and were threatened to be circulated on the social media platforms. Supratim Paul approached the complainant to extort money, but his demands were not met. Further, Supratim Paul shared the same on the phone of his mother (present appellant) who also in conspiracy with her son tried to blackmail the complainant to extort money. In a nutshell, this is the case set out by the complainant.
3. The record reveals that the prime accused Supratim aged 23 years stands enlarged on bail and no challenge has been laid to the said bail order.
4. It is also a matter of record that the instant appellant i.e. Sabita Paul, the mother of the prime accused moved an application seeking anticipatory bail, firstly before the Sessions Court and thereafter before the High Court which indisputably stood rejected. This was all before the filing of the charge sheet dated 07.05.2022. It is a matter of record that post dismissal of such applications, on 20.01.2023, the instant appellant again applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court which stood allowed vide order dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-9 page 83). The complainant by filing an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 sought cancellation of such an order which stood allowed vide impugned order dated 20.09.2023 on the ground that the instant appellant had suppressed “material facts of” dismissal of her previous attempts to secure anticipatory bail.
5. The appeal thus arises out of such order of cancellation of granting anticipatory bail. At this juncture, we may also note that this Court vide order dated 06.11.2023 had granted interim protection in favour of the accused subject to all cooperating in the investigation and trial. Before us, it is not in dispute that the instant appellant is in full compliance with such an order. It is not the case of the respondents that post the grant of interim protection the appellant, has, in any manner impeded the cause of justice.
6. The concept of anticipatory bail came to be part of the criminal law landscape via the 41st Report of the Law Commission which recommended the inclusion of such a provision, which then stood incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Over the years, many judgments of this Court have considered that a Court must weigh while considering an application for anticipatory bail. In Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Anita Agarwal and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 777, a three-Judge Bench laid down the following factors:
“112.......(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made.
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence.
(iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice.
(iv) the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences.
(v) whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the
Grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right – Court is required to focus on role attached to accused whose application is under consideration.
Cancellation of bail should not be done in a mechanical manner and should only be considered in the presence of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, as outlined by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Anticipatory bail should not be granted in serious offences.
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant was not only declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but proclamation of attachment of property was also iss....
Point of Law – It is clear that provisions of Section 438 CrPC have their genesis in Article 21 of Constitution of India, which deals with liberty of an individual.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving serious allegations, even if custodial interrogation is not necessary, focusing on the prima facie case and nature....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
