Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Harmanjot Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-27176-2022
Decided On : 28-06-2022

Advocates:
Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.S. Khaira, AAG, Punjab., for the Respondent.

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 restrictive conditions to prevent the accused from influencing the investigation or intimidating witnesses.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Sexual Assault - 376 IPC - 91 - 12.05.2022 - City Moga, District Moga - Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42; State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240; Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280; Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22; Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1; Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570 - The court considered the cumulative effect of various circumstances justifying the grant of bail, the need to establish a prima facie case, and the possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and fleeing justice. The court also emphasized the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in granting bail, imposing restrictive conditions, and balancing individual rights with the right of police investigation.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of sexual assault under section 376 IPC. The victim, a working matured adult lady, alleged that the petitioner forcibly committed sexual acts with her under the pretext of marriage and threatened her to keep quiet.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, being a first offender, made a case for bail considering the circumstances and the need for course correction. The court emphasized the need to balance individual rights with the right of police investigation and imposed stringent conditions to prevent the accused from influencing the investigation or intimidating witnesses.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail in a case of sexual assault, the need to establish a prima facie case, and the possibility of the accused influencing the investigation and intimidating witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, State of Rajasthan v Balchand, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, Sushila Aggarwal, and Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion, balancing individual rights with the right of police investigation, and imposing restrictive conditions to prevent the accused from influencing the investigation or intimidating witnesses.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions to prevent influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and fleeing justice.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
91	12.05.2022	City Moga, District Moga	376 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 23 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The victim, who is a working matured adult lady alleged that the petitioner slowly and steadily started making friendship with her and on one day took her to his home where he tried to establish sexual relationships with her. On her refusal, he played Anand Karaj Sahib from his mobile phone and placed the Gutka Sahib and took laavaan phere with her. He also applied vermillion on the parting line of my head. After that, he committed sexual intercourse with her. Later on, he resiled from the said marriage. The petitioner declared the victim to be his wife from that day onwards. Slowly and steadily he will reveal the factum of marriage and he asked her not to reveal it to anyone. The victim stated to the petitioner that she was very much afraid and is having headache. The petitioner gave her a medicine to stop headache. After giving the medicine, the petitioner hugged her and asked her to sit on the bed, when the victim refused to do so, he forcibly threw her on the bed and committed rape upon her. The victim said that she did not know anything about sex and he did it forcibly. When she raised cries, then the petitioner told her that none would hear her cries and nobody would come to rescue her. Because of the sexual act, she got marks and bruises all over her body. When she tried to run away, then the petitioner opened his turban and tied her with the bed and again committed rape upon her. When he would stop penetrating her from vagina, then he would start doing the same from her anus. She cried a lot but he did not stop. He stated that this is a normal relationship between husband and wife. He offered her water and assured her that nothing would go. He also touched her feet and declared that nothing would happen. He would marry her as and in front of everyone and then sent her back to her home. At that time, she was unable to walk. After reaching home, the victim noticed marks and bruises on her body and brought this fact to the notice of the petitioner. On the next day, the petitioner provided her a tablet for unwanted pregnancy which she took. After that day, he again continued to have sexual relationships with her. He stopped her to talk to anybody in the Court, where she was working. In case, she would talk to anybody then he would call her and abuse her. He kept on calling her and when she would refuse to come, then he blackmailed her under the protest that he would show her nude photographs and video to her father. Later on, she introduced the petitioner with her family members. There is no need to refer the further allegations in detail.

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 employee, matured lady and working in the Court and she would know the consequences and legal remedies. Instead her keeping quiet for such a long time would make out a case for bail to the petitioner. There is no need to comment further, it might prejudice the case of the prosecution. The petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 6 of the bail petition needs consideration for 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