2023 (7) TMI 1383 - SC - Indian Laws

Female appellant granted bail in false affidavit case after charge-sheet filed, no urgent surrender circumstances found

The SC allowed bail to a female appellant accused of influencing citizens to swear false affidavits used in investigation relating to 2002 offences. The ... Rejection of bail - influencing certain citizens to swear false affidavits, which were used as a part of investigation - HELD THAT:- The consideration which weighed with the Court while passing the aforesaid order that the appellant is a lady has not changed. The fact that the offence alleged against her relates to the year 2002 and that the FIR pertains to documents which are sought to be presented or relied upon till the year 2012 has also not changed. The fact that the appellant was available for custodial interrogation for a period of seven days and thereafter she was in continuous judicial custody has also not changed - Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that after she was released on interim bail by this Court, she has admittedly not been called for investigation even on a single occasion. Taking into consideration that most of the evidence in the present case are documentary evidence, which are already in possession of the Investigating Agency and, further, that the charge-sheet has been filed, it is found that she is entitled for bail. Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is that at the time of pronouncing the impugned order, the learned Judge, though noticing that on account of order of this Court dated 2nd September 2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1417 and 1418 of 2022 the appellant was on interim bail, directed her to surrender immediately - it is not understood to as to what was the alarming urgency to direct the appellant to surrender immediately, particularly, when the appellant was enjoying the interim protection under the orders of this Court from 2nd September 2022. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the appeal is allowed - bail allowed. Issues Involved:1. Rejection of bail application by the High Court.2. Allegations under Sections 194 and 468 IPC.3. Considerations for granting bail.4. Urgency in directing surrender despite interim bail.Summary:Issue 1: Rejection of Bail Application by the High CourtThe appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 1st July 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, thereby rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant. The High Court's decision was based on the prima facie finding that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 194 IPC are present, thus justifying the rejection of bail.Issue 2: Allegations under Sections 194 and 468 IPCThe appellant was arrested on 25th June 2022, for offences under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218, and 120B of the IPC. The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out a case under Sections 194 and 468 IPC. The counsel emphasized that Section 194 IPC pertains to evidence recorded before the Court, which was not applicable in this case.Issue 3: Considerations for Granting BailThe Supreme Court noted that the considerations for granting bail include the prima facie case, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the risk of the accused fleeing from justice. The Court found that the appellant, a lady, had been in custody since 25th June 2022, and the essential ingredients of the investigation, including custodial interrogation, had been completed. The appellant had not been called for investigation after being released on interim bail, indicating no further need for custody.Issue 4: Urgency in Directing Surrender Despite Interim BailThe Supreme Court questioned the urgency shown by the learned Judge in directing the appellant to surrender immediately, despite the appellant enjoying interim protection under the Court's order dated 2nd September 2022. The Court found no alarming urgency to justify this directive.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and directed that the appellant be continued on bail as granted on 2nd September 2022. The Court emphasized that the appellant should not attempt to influence witnesses and clarified that none of the observations made would influence the trial court at the stage of the trial.