Supreme Court Allows Anticipatory Bail in IPC Offences Case After High Court Rejection. Appellant Granted Bail Under Section 438 CrPC with Conditions Despite Charges Under Sections 376, 328, 506, 313 IPC, Considering Entirety of Situation and Prolonged Interim Protection.

  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from the High Court of Delhi's rejection of an anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No.300/2019 registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 376, 328, 506, and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court had rejected the bail application on 11.10.2019, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. The core legal issue was whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail considering the nature of offences and circumstances. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both parties and considered the entirety of the situation, noting that the appellant had enjoyed interim relief from coercive action for over two years pursuant to the Court's order dated 18.12.2019. The Court reasoned that based on the overall circumstances, the appellant deserved the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions including furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and cooperating fully with the investigation by presenting before the Investigating Officer when required.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of Bail Under Section 438 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - Appellant challenged High Court's rejection of anticipatory bail application for offences including rape and criminal intimidation - Supreme Court considered entirety of situation and appellant's enjoyment of interim relief for over two years - Held that appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail, appeal allowed and High Court order set aside with conditions for bail and cooperation in investigation (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 376/328/506/313 IPC

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Order of High Court set aside. Appellant granted anticipatory bail with conditions: (a) If arrested, to be released on bail on furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; (b) Appellant shall cooperate fully in investigation and present before Investigating Officer when required.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail principles under Section 438 CrPC
  • consideration of entirety of circumstances
  • entitlement to bail after prolonged interim protection
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 Lawtext (SC) (3) 130

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11390 of 2019

2022-03-07

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Adv., Mr. Anurag, AOR, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Mr. Gurmeet singh Makker, Adv., Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv., Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv., Mr. Raghvendra S. Srivatsa, Adv.

ABHISHEK KUMAR

STATE OF DELHI

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against High Court order rejecting anticipatory bail application

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to avoid arrest in connection with FIR No.300/2019

Filing Reason

Apprehension of arrest for offences under Sections 376/328/506/313 IPC

Previous Decisions

High Court of Delhi rejected anticipatory bail application on 11.10.2019 in Bail Application No.1913 of 2019

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 376/328/506/313 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

Considering the entirety of the situation and the fact that the appellant had enjoyed interim relief from coercive action for over two years, the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

Considering the entirety of the situation, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the order passed by the High Court, and direct as under: a) In case the appellant is arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail subject to his furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two like sureties. b) The appellant shall extend complete co-operation in the ensuing investigation and in order to facilitate the investigation, the appellant shall present himself before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence is requisitioned by the Investigating Officer.

Procedural History

FIR No.300/2019 dated 21.05.2019 registered → Appellant filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC → High Court rejected application on 11.10.2019 → Appellant filed SLP before Supreme Court → Supreme Court granted interim relief on 18.12.2019 directing no coercive action → Final hearing on 07.03.2022 → Supreme Court allowed appeal and granted anticipatory bail

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 438
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 376, 328, 506, 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Anticipatory Bail in IPC Offences Case After High Court Rejection. Appellant Granted Bail Under Section 438 CrPC with Conditions Despite Charges Under Sections 376, 328, 506, 313 IPC, Considering Entirety of Situation and Prolong...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Belated Claim for Co-operative Housing Society Membership by Legal Heirs Cannot Be Denied Where Occupation and Earlier Resolution Recognised Membership Rights: Supreme Court