2016 (2) TMI 416 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Restores Anticipatory Bail Emphasizing Balance

Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Versus State of Gujarat & Another

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions ... Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court challenged - Held that:- As no purpose would be served in compelling the appellant to go behind bars, as an undertrial, by refusing the anticipatory bail in respect of alleged incident which is 17 years old and for which the charge is framed only in the year 2014. The investigation is complete and there is no allegation that the appellant may flee the course of justice. The FIR was registered and the trial commenced in the year 2001; albeit with the charge framed under Section 506(2) IPC, and during all these periods, the appellant has participated in the proceedings. There is no allegation that during this period he had tried to influence the witnesses. In the aforesaid circumstances, even when there is a serious charge levelled against the appellant, that by itself should not be the reason to deny anticipatory bail when the matter is examined keeping in view other factors enumerated above. The prosecutrix has moved an application in these proceedings for perusing new evidence on the basis of which she claims that the appellant has committed breach of conditions of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It is not necessary for us to go into the allegations made in this application. She would be at liberty to make such an application before the trial court for cancellation of bail. We may clarify that we have not gone through the merits of this application, and as and when such an application is made, the trial court would be free to examine the same and pass the order as the trial court deems fit in accordance with law. Before we part, in order to balance the equities, we are of the view that the trial in this case may be expeditiously conducted and the trial court should endeavour to complete the same within one year.As a result, we set aside the impugned judgment and restore the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellant on the conditions mentioned in the said order. Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the High Court's order canceling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.2. Examination of the circumstances leading to the addition of the charge under Section 376 IPC at a later stage.3. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail in the context of the allegations and the delay in raising them.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the High Court's Order Canceling Anticipatory Bail:The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment dated 18.07.2014, which canceled the anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision did not take the matter simplistically and required a detailed discussion. The High Court had remarked that the prosecutrix had to run a marathon to get her complaint registered and to add the charge under Section 376 IPC. However, the Supreme Court found these observations to be incorrect and noted that the Sessions Court had provided proper reasons for granting anticipatory bail, which were aligned with the reasons considered by the Supreme Court in its judgment.2. Circumstances Leading to Addition of Charge Under Section 376 IPC:The initial charge against the appellant was framed under Section 506(2) IPC in 2001, based on a statement recorded on 31.05.2001, which did not include allegations of rape. The prosecutrix later filed an application in 2010 to amend the charge to include Section 376 IPC, based on her complaint dated 29.05.2001. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially deferred this request but later directed further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation led to the filing of a revised chargesheet, adding Section 376 IPC. The High Court's order canceling the anticipatory bail was based on these subsequent developments. However, the Supreme Court noted that the delay in raising the charge, coupled with the prosecutrix's inaction for several years, contributed to the decision to grant anticipatory bail.3. Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail:The Supreme Court emphasized that the core issue was whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail, given the circumstances. The Court noted that the allegations of rape pertained to incidents from 1997-1998, and the charge under Section 376 IPC was added only in 2014. The prosecutrix did not protest the initial framing of the charge under Section 506(2) IPC in 2001 and took steps to amend the charge only after several years. The Supreme Court considered the principles laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, which emphasized that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest process aimed at protecting personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also referred to the judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, which highlighted the balance between individual liberty and societal interest.The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, considering the long delay in raising the charge, the lack of immediate protest by the prosecutrix, and the appellant's cooperation with the investigation. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail, with the trial to be expedited and completed within one year.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual liberty with societal interest and the need for a liberal interpretation of Section 438 of the Code in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The trial was directed to be conducted expeditiously and completed within one year.