INTRODUCTION

This case pertains to anticipatory bail and the decision of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail on the facts given. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows an individual to request “Anticipatory Bail.” This implies that a person may apply for or demand bail in anticipation of being identified or charged with a crime for which bail is not available.

Anticipatory bail protects someone wrongfully accused or charged, usually because of professional or personal animosity. It guarantees the release of the wrongly accused individual before they are even taken into custody. In order to get anticipatory bail, an applicant must appear before the Court of Sessions or the High Court, cite section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and provide a valid justification. Bail is granted if the court determines that the petition has merit based on a variety of factors and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the event that the subject is taken into custody, they will be promptly freed under the terms of the anticipatory bail. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

An alleged juvenile girl filed a First Information Report detailing how accused Shamim Tabassum drove her to the flash deal. Two of the seven sisters that one Maruti Chandre had are Mahananda and Sunita. Mahananda had no spouse. Dilip Deshmukh was Sunita’s first spouse, and he passed away. She was married to Sahebrao Mhaske, who passed away too, leaving a prosecutrix and a Santosh in his wake. She remarried to Vasantrao Hudgir following the passing of Sahebrao Mhaske. Two problems stem from the aforementioned union. It is said that Mahananda was looking after Santosh and the prosecutrix. 

She had once fled her Parbhani home after Mahananda had mistreated and attacked her, but she later went back. But when she got back to Parbhani, her cousin started abusing and assaulting her once more. She returned to Aurangabad and settled at Mukundwadi, where she became acquainted with the accused Tabassum @ Baji. She was invited to become a maid-servant in her home. Puja claims that certain girls used to visit Tabassum’s home. After a few days, she was invited to accompany the girl who had not shown up. When they arrived at a Dhaba in Mhaismal in a white car, they saw someone seated. A soft drink was provided to her. After eating it, she had mental reeling.

Moreover, she was unable to walk. She allegedly suffered from rape against her will. Accused Tabassum led her back into the house. After that, it was said that she had been sent out regularly with different people. Occasionally, she was supposed to split the money she got 50/50. Tabassum used to occasionally carry the amount with her. She utilized the money she used to earn to buy jewelry, clothes, and other items. The girl said that the respondents had brought her to a hotel, a guest house run by the government, and once, even to their own residence. The accused individuals listed in Accused No. 1’s First Information Report visited her home on April 22, 2007, with the intention of transporting her to Mumbai. The police took them in the way due to suspicion of indecent behavior.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court is legally valid?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument from the side of the petitioner

• The prosecutrix was a minor at all relevant times, which are the dates of January 2007 to April 22, 2007, so the High Court made a grave mistake in granting the contested judgment. In light of this, the alleged consent she provided would not have much meaning. This is clear from a number of public documents. 
• The learned attorney would argue that the prosecutrix had made categorical accusations against Accused Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in her statement that was recorded by the police. Before the learned Magistrate, she delivered a similar testimony, which was documented on April 28, 2007, under Section 164 Cr.PC.
• In any case, considering the nature and seriousness of the offense, any evidence gathered by the prosecution during the course of the investigation should have been taken into account, as the First Information Report is not encyclopedic. As the CID carried out an investigation under the direction of a superintendent of police, it is impossible to say that an attempt was made to falsely implicate the respondents. It was brought up that the same erudite Judge had denied the accused six people bail after a chargesheet was filed against them on July 18, 2007. Custodial interrogation of the accused is essential, given that she was brought to a hotel, guest homes, and residence.

Argument from the side of the respondent

• The prosecutrix reported her age as eighteen in the First Information Report, in her medical examination, and in her supplemental statement. Her aunt even declared her to be eighteen years old. Since the girl was presumed to be older than sixteen and had given her agreement and consideration, no case under Section 376 IPC had been established. As a result, this Court should not intervene in the impugned judgment. 
• The respondent has been fully cooperating with the Investigating Officer in accordance with the interim order issued by the High Court. With the exception of four days, they have meticulously complied with all of the requirements set forth in both the impugned judgment and the interim order.
• There is a contrast between this court’s exercise of jurisdiction over an appeal from an order granting or rejecting a bail cancellation request and one granting anticipatory bail; it is customary for this court to stay out of such matters. In this regard, the State of U.P. has been heavily relied upon via CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, etc. & Harendrajit Singh v. Jagdish and Others.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court held that in the present circumstances, the decision of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail is not satisfied, and hence, the Hon’ble SC rejected the anticipatory bail. These days, human trafficking is pervasive. It is important to provide complete protection to victims who are threatened, enticed, or forced into the trade. Although we are unable to discuss the specifics of the case at this time to avoid harming any party’s chances of winning at trial, it is already established law that the court must document its reasoning for granting anticipatory bail.

We believe that the High Court should not have given the respondents anticipatory bail, given the unique facts and circumstances of the case. As a result, the contested judgment is set aside since it cannot stand. The appeal is accepted. The respondents have the option to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and file an application for normal bail, which will be evaluated independently of this Court’s ruling.

CONCLUSION

Such a case ought to be given the opportunity for a thorough investigation. It may not always be deemed necessary for all of the accused individuals to be listed in the First Information Report after a criminal prosecution is initiated by filing information regarding the commission of the offense under Section 154 Cr. PC. The prosecutrix has never denied or challenged that she has no personal grudges against the respondents. She has no justification for unjustly accusing them. Furthermore, it is not true that she acted against the respondents’ wishes at the request of another individual. 

Mr. Patwalia relied on the Amarmani Tripathi case. In that case, the Court held that the only relevant factors in an application for bail cancellation are the behavior that occurred after the defendant was released on bond and the subsequent events. However, the court must take into account the guidelines established for anticipatory bail when evaluating an appeal against its granting. However, if the accused has been out of custody for a long period, the situation can be different when resolving an appeal from a bail decision. In this case, it will also be necessary to evaluate the accused’s behavior after being released from custody as well as any other relevant circumstances.

After taking into account even the events that followed, this Court concluded in the aforementioned Amarmani Tripathi (supra) case that the accused had attempted to obstruct the investigation’s progress, tamper with witnesses, fabricate evidence, intimidate or put obstacles in the way of investigation officers, and undermine the case. In such an instance, the bail-granting appeal was overturned.