IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the applicant is prima facie falsely implicated, considering the nature of accusations and facts of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bokaro in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 612 of 2023 arising out of Spl. POCSO Case No. 38 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the prayer for pre-arrest bail in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 58 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 584 of 2017, registered under Sections 370, 376, 366-A, 120(B) of Penal Code, under Sections 4 and 12 of Protection of Children From the Sexual Offences Act, has been rejected.

2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Mrs. Pinki Kumari, learned counsel has submitted by referring to the first information report that there is no specific allegation against the appellants and as such, it is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail but the learned trial court below without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has rejected the instant bail application of the appellants, therefore, the instant appeal.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the names of the appellants have been disclosed as preparatory of the alleged offence and further the appellant no. 1 has been disclosed as the person who committed rape with the victim.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order and as such, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed

5. Having heard the aforesaid grounds of both parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court while considering the application for pre-arrest bail in the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 and affidavit-in-objection filed by the State in pursuance of the order dated 12.10.2023 of this Court.

6. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, at this juncture it will be purposeful to discuss the settled law with respect to granting and/or refusing the pre-arrest bail.

7. It has been settled by the Apex Court time and again in its various pronouncements that the pre-arrest bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima-facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime, as grant of anticipatory bail to some extent, interference in sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such powers.

8. It is also settled connotation of law that the grant or refusal of the application of the pre-arrest bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that the law on grant of anticipatory bail has been summed up by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlinappa Mhetre vs. state of Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 after due deliberation on the parameters as evolved by the constitution bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment as rendered by the hon’ble Apex Court is being quoted herein-under:

“111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia Case (1980) 2 SCC