IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Princepal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-27154-2022
Decided On : 24-06-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Rape Allegation - 376, 511, 354, 354-A, 342, 323 IPC - The court considered various legal provisions and precedents related to bail, including the need for prima facie case, conditions for granting bail, and the accused's behavior. The court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions to ensure the accused's cooperation with the investigation and to protect the victim's interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case where the victim alleged an attempted rape by the petitioner after being sent home with him by her sister.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie allegation of rape and considered the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents. It granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions to ensure the accused's cooperation with the investigation and to protect the victim's interests.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of attempted rape.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the need for a prima facie case, the accused's behavior, and the protection of the victim's interests in granting anticipatory bail with stringent conditions.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and to protect the victim's interests.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J.
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
162 | 11.05.2022 | B-Division, Amritsar | 376, 511, 354, 354-A, 342, 323 IPC |
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The victim alleged that on 09.05.2022, she along with her sister had gone to give matriculation examination. After the examination is over, her sister sent her back to home along with petitioner Princepal Singh. Instead of taking her to home, the petitioner took her to a hotel, where he tried to commit rape upon her. The petitioner was able to save herself from his advances and fled away.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.
REASONING:
6. The victim is an adult aged 19 years and nobody had stopped her from accompany to her home along with her sister. Anybody can smell rat by the fact of her sister sending the victim along with the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no prima facie allegation of rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC. The petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course- correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 4 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail. Given above, there is no justification to deny the bail.
7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, the
Aparna Bhatt vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav
Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi
The main legal point established is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail, considering the prima facie case, the accused's behavior, and the protection of the victim's interests.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach between personal freedom and police investigation, and the factors justifying the grant of bail, including the abs....
The court has the discretion to grant bail with stringent conditions, taking into account the accused's background and the principles laid down in relevant case laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, balancing individual rights with the right of police investigation, and imposing re....
The court considered various legal precedents related to bail decisions, including the lack of motive for the alleged offence and the petitioner's first-time offender status, in reaching its decision....
The court's discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner, considering the circumstances and legal precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach between personal freedom and the right of police investigation when considering the grant of bail.
The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge, and the court must strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of police investigati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail and impose stringent conditions to ensure the safety of the victim and witnesses.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.