Tag: #AnticipatoryBail

-Report by Ankit Hinnariya

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi granted anticipatory bail to Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, the petitioners in a case registered under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Laxmi Nagar Police Station. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, took into account the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the State. This article provides an overview of the case, the contentions raised by the parties involved, and the court’s decision.

Facts

The case at hand involves an FIR registered at Laxmi Nagar Police Station in Delhi under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR was lodged against Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, the petitioners, on the basis of allegations made by the complainant. The FIR accused the petitioners of offences including assault, molestation, and rape.

The initial PCR call made by the complainant on September 9, 2022, alleged molestation by the petitioners. The following day, another PCR call was made, claiming that the petitioners had threatened the complainant and intended to rape her along with their friends. 

Subsequently, at 2:04 PM on the same day, another PCR call reiterated these allegations.

It was only on September 26, 2022, when the written complaint was forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), that the allegations of rape were levelled against the petitioners. Prior to this, the charges primarily revolved around molestation.

The medical examination of the complainant conducted on September 9, 2022, did not reveal any signs of rape. The observations made by the doctor from Hedgewar Hospital suggested physical assault rather than rape.

On October 19, 2022, another PCR call was made by the complainant, alleging molestation once again by the petitioners.

These facts form the basis of the case, indicating the sequence of events leading to the filing of the FIR and the subsequent allegations against the petitioners. The court took into consideration these facts while evaluating the merits of the case and deciding on the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Petitioner’s Contention

In their petition for anticipatory bail, the petitioners, Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, presented several contentions to support their innocence and request protection from arrest. These contentions were put forth by their advocate, Ms. ParulAgarwal, during the court proceedings.

The petitioner argued that the allegations levelled against them in the FIR were false and frivolous. They claimed that there was an ongoing family dispute and various civil suits related to property matters, which might have prompted the filing of the FIR as an attempt to harm their reputation and grab their share of the property.

The petitioner highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, specifically regarding the charges under Section 376 of the IPC (rape). They contended that the allegations of rape were added later, after the complainant’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), suggesting that these additional charges were an afterthought.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was unnecessary. They emphasized that the petitioners were willing to cooperate with the investigation and were ready to join it whenever required by the investigating officer. The petitioner further stated that no recovery was to bemade from the petitioners, indicating that their presence in custody was not warranted.

The petitioner asserted that there were no grounds to believe that the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence. They assured the court that their clients had no intention of evading the law and would actively participate in the proceedings.

These contentions were presented to establish the petitioners’ innocence and argue for the grant of anticipatory bail, ensuring their protection from arrest pending the investigation.

Respondent’s Contention

The respondents, represented by Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Assistant Public Prosecutor, He was accompanied by SI Sanyukta from the Laxmi Nagar Police Station. Additionally, Mr. Ankit Mehta, Mr. Varun Singh, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar served as advocates representing the second respondent in the case, and presented their contentions opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan.

The prosecution argued that the allegations against the petitioners were grave and serious in nature. They emphasized the severity of the charges under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the IPC. The respondents contended that considering the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners should not be granted anticipatory bail.

The respondents highlighted that the complainant had submitted a detailed complaint to the police, providing a comprehensive account of the allegations made against the petitioners. They also pointed out that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. further supported the charges brought against the petitioners.

The complainant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The respondents argued that the complainant’s objection was based on the serious nature of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter.

While the respondents focused on the gravity of the charges and the complainant’s detailed complaint, they did not contest the petitioners’ contention that custodial interrogation was unnecessary or that no recovery was to be made from the petitioners. Instead, their primary contention revolved around the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant’s opposition to the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT 

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar carefully considered the arguments presented and examined the facts of the case. The court noted that the initial PCR calls made by the complainant only alleged molestation and the charges of rape were added at a later stage. Additionally, the medical examination conducted on the complainant did not indicate signs of rape but suggested physical assault.

Referring to relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Justice Bhatnagar emphasized that the severity of the accusations alone should not be the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the importance of an individual’s liberty. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court allowed the bail applications and ordered that if arrested, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Bkc33a

-Report by Harshit Gupta

Anticipatory bail was granted to all accused in the case of Mahmood Bava V. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 20-03-2023. 

FACTS:

This case involves many accused, who were booked under sections 420, 466, 467 471 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this case, M/s. NaftoGaz India Pvt Ltd. secured a loan from a consortium of banks led by SBI. After 27.07.2012 the account of the bank was showing signs of sickness and on 22.11.2012, the account was classified as NPA, and on 03.02.2015, the account was declared fraudulent account. One property as security was found to be in litigation and another property was overvalued. Thereafter, the Loan Company lodged the FIR on 26.06.2019, and none of the accused was taken into custody by CBI. It seemed to the court that each accused cooperated in the investigation and the final report was filed by CBI on 31.12.2021, and after this, special courts issued summons for the appearance of all accused in the court on 07.03.2022. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the appellants moved to the special court with the application of Anticipatory Bail, which was rejected by the said Court and was confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the Appellants approached Supreme Court. 

CONTENTIONS:

Respondent:

Accused no. 2, Shri Mahdoom Bava, is stated to be the promoter/director of the Company and he is alleged to be the kingpin. Accused no. 3, Shri Deepak Gupta is a third party who has allegedly given his personal guarantee. According to the prosecution, he claimed title to the property based on fictitious documents and he sold away some proportions of his property before the mortgage. Accused No. 10 was alleged to have created bogus bills and fake lorry receipts, in connivance with accused No. 2, to enable the Company to have the bills discounted. Accused 14 namely Yatish Sharma was alleged to have operated the account of M/s Shri Radhey Traders. The respondent also contended that the prime accused, no. 2, Mahdoom Bava, is also involved in 11 other cases.

JUDGEMENT:

In this, the judgement was delivered by Justice V. Rama Subramanian by granting SLP, as the criminal appeal arose from the SLPs. The judgement was so delivered and granted anticipatory bail to the accused on the basis that they cooperated through the investigation, and they would do so in future if they were summoned during the trial. The prayer of anticipatory bail was opposed vehemently by the respondent. But the court was of the view that there were three factors which tilted the balance in the favour of the accused. Factor one was that the custody of all accused was not required during the investigation, therefore, it is now hard to digest that custody is now required at this stage. Factor two is that in the case of Shree Deepak Gupta, CBI took the stand before the special court that the presence of the accused during the investigation is not required but it will surely need during the trial. Therefore, the Apex Court considered this as the only presence of all accused is required not the custody during the trial to face the trial. Factor three the Apex Court considered is that the complaint is borne out of records and the primary focus is on documentary evidence, so the court did not understand the arrest of all accused during this time as the offence was committed a decade ago. In the respondent’s contention of 11 cases, appeal arouse from 3 cases and 7 were of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The eighth case is filed by an income tax officer for non-payment of the TDS amount. In this case, anticipatory bail was granted by the Court to all accused based on the findings of the Court. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ksujg6

-Report by Harshit Yadav

In this case, four individuals were accused of various offences related to a fraudulent loan obtained by a company called M/s NaftoGaz India Pvt. Ltd. from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The accused individuals had applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Supreme Court heard the appeals challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail and made its decision based on various factors. The main point being made by the Hon’ble supreme court is that there were certain factors that favoured the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused individuals, despite the serious nature of the allegations against them.

FACTS:

The case involves an FIR registered by Corporation Bank alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused, namely Shri Mahdoom Bava, Shri Deepak Gupta, Shri Akash Gupta, and Shri Yatish Sharma have filed appeals challenging the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting their applications for anticipatory bail. The accusations involve the alleged creation of a fraudulent account by M/s NaftoGaz India Pvt. Ltd., which secured certain credit facilities from a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The prosecution alleges that the Company connived and conspired with advocates and valuers hired by the consortium of banks, and therefore the promoters/directors of the Company, the guarantors as well as those involved in the sanction of the loan were guilty of the offences complained. The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused based on three factors: (i) CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the accused during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report), (ii) CBI only required the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial, and (iii) all transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-13.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the accused persons are entitled to anticipatory bail in the light of serious allegations levelled against them in the FIR filed by the Corporation Bank, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Whether the custodial interrogation of the appellants is required, given that the CBI did not require their custodial interrogation during the investigation period, and whether the custody of the appellants is necessary at this stage.
3. Whether the presence of the accused is required before the trial court for trial or not, and whether opposing the anticipatory bail request at this stage is justified in light of the CBI’s stand that only the presence of the accused before the Trial Court is required.
4. Whether the transactions in question took place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, and whether the accused should be granted anticipatory bail in the absence of any evidence of their involvement in the alleged fraud.

CONTENTIONS:

The appellants, in this case, have challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which rejected their application for anticipatory bail. The appellants have argued that they are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious allegations levelled against them in the FIR filed by the Corporation Bank. They have contended that the CBI did not require their custodial interrogation during the investigation period, and therefore, their custody is not necessary at this stage. The appellants have also argued that the CBI only required their presence before the trial court for trial, and opposing their anticipatory bail request at this stage is not justified.

On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the appellants’ request for anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations against them are serious in nature, and their custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth. The respondents have argued that the appellants cannot be granted anticipatory bail merely because the CBI did not require their custody during the investigation period. They have also contended that the presence of the accused before the trial court is not enough, and their custody is necessary to ensure that they do not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case, several accused individuals have appealed against the rejection of their applications for anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The First Information Report in the case was registered on 29.06.2019 at the instance of the Corporation Bank, for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations involved a company securing credit facilities from a consortium of banks and committing fraud, with the accused including the company’s promoters/directors, guarantors, and those involved in sanctioning the loan. The CBI completed its investigation and filed a final report on 31.12.2021, with the Special Court issuing a summons for the appearance of the accused on 07.03.2022. The appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Special Court and confirmed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the investigation period and that the CBI only wanted the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial, which may not be proper grounds to oppose anticipatory bail at this stage. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellants.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3yX4kad

-Report by Tannu

It was held by the Delhi high court in the case of GAGAN KHOKHA V. STATE NCT OF DELHI, that under section 438 of CrPC 1973 anticipatory bail was granted to every person, but only after checking the facts and circumstances of each case.

Facts:

The judgment was made by justice Amit Sharma. This is reserved on 20 January 2023 and pronounced on 3rd February 2023. The FIR was made under section 323/342/376 on 21 .9.2020 by the complainant against the application and his family members. The complainant stated that she lives with her old-aged mother they both are harassed and threatened (physically, and mentally) by the applicant and his family members.
The complainant stated that the applicant forcefully entered in house by breaking the door and windows and she already made a complaint against him in PS Rajinder Nagar. Further alleged that one day applicant entered their house by jumping over a wall and forcing her to do sexual intercourse with him otherwise he threatened to kidnap her.
The complainant further alleged that Devendra Khokha is applicant’s father and (co-accused )of the present case, followed her and passed sexually coloured remarks.

Plaintiff’s contentions:

On 20.09.2020 complainant alleged that applicant followed her to her house and tried to have sexual intercourse with her and when she told him that she already informed the police the applicant ran away after that his family along with him threatened her again on the same day her medical examination was conducted at ram Manohar Lohia hospital, New Delhi. On 23.09.2020 complainant’s statement was recorded under section 164 of CrPC. And chargesheet was filed on 08.02.2022 under sections 354/450/454/506/509/34 of IPC.

Applicant’s contentions:

Learned counsel was present on behalf of the applicant and stated that applicant Gagan Khokha live separately from his parents and his house is very far from the complainant’s residence. It also submitted that the complainant began visiting his home around May 2019 for the care of his mother Smt. Suman khokha , suffering from lympnode asphyxia. It was produced that the complainant had a relationship with his father Devendra Khokha (applicant’s father). They had a relationship for some time and stayed together at various hotels around Delhi and all bills of hotels were attached or various voice recordings and call recordings between them.
As the opposite of this learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and disclosed the allegations against the applicant and stated that the applicant created a false story of the complainant’s affair with his father and also created false evidence (bills, invoices) tampering, fabricating with the documents including Adhar card of the complainant.
The complainant made another complaint on 17.04.2021 against the applicant and his father and FIR was made under section 323/345 registered at PS Rajinder Nagar.
The investigation of the present case is almost complete and the trial is underway. The applicant has already been interrogated and no custodial interrogation is required for him.

Judgement:

After looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case the application for anticipatory bail is allowed to the applicant. Because of arrest with the present case FIR, the applicant is released after filing a personal bond of 50,000 rupees with some terms and conditions:
●The applicant is not to leave India without Court’s permission
●The applicant is not to tamper with evidence
●The application has to give all his mobile numbers to investigating officer
●If the applicant tried to temper with evidence then bail shall be cancelled.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40F8bpd

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000766

-Report by Mahak

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted anticipatory bail in the case of GURPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. This application was made under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant, who was arrested at the police Station Karahiya, District Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicant is a 27-year-old man who is the husband of the complainant and anticipates his arrest for the offence mentioned above.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the primary allegation against the applicant is of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and that the allegation of rape is against his brother-in-law Boota Singh. However, it is alleged that he did not respond to the complaint made by the complainant/prosecutrix (the applicant’s wife), and this case was registered six months later.

Since the lawsuit stems from a marital disagreement, the applicant’s counsel alluded to several settlement discussions between the two parties. The compromise was incapable of producing an effective settlement. In addition, mediation processes were performed at the request of this court but were not successful. He referred to the recurring inclusion of allegations of violation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in domestic disputes. Confinement may result in social disgrace and personal benefit. The applicant agrees to assist with the investigation/trial. Under these conditions, he requests that his bail application may be considered.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Counsel for the respondent/State argued against the prayer. The learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the prayer and argued that the applicant is the complainant’s spouse and did not respond to her complaint when she was mistreated by family members and the principal defendant Boota Singh. He also brought up the issue of police authority not cooperating. He begged for the application to be denied.

JUDGEMENT

This court granted an anticipatory motion in light of the arguments and the facts that the applicant is the spouse and that he is not accused of a rape-related offence. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon providing a personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.

This order further had 8 conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant such as complying with the process and not threatening any person acquainted with the facts.

-Report by Monishka Allahbadi

The Supreme Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to a man accused of rape. An FIR for the crime of repeatedly committing rape on the same lady (Section 376(2)(n)) was filed against an accused.

In the case of ANSAAR MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath about the Rajasthan High Court’s decision denying an anticipatory bail.

The complainant had admitted that she had been in a four-year relationship with the appellant. Additionally, it was stated by the complainant’s attorney that she was 21 years old at the time the connection started.

An application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was denied for offenses under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, and 506 IPC by the Rajasthan High Court. Ansaar Mohammad filed a petition with the Supreme Court to overturn this decision. The Apex court granted anticipatory bail to the accused.

“we allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the competent authority. It is made clear that the observations in the present order are only for the purposes of deciding the pre-arrest bail application. The investigation shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order.”

All pending applications in relation to the bail application were also disposed of.

-Report by Ishika Sehgal

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a family accused of demanding dowry and attempting to murder the daughter-in-law, who is the complainant. The family was charged under sections 307 and 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code,1860 and sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Justice Subba Reddy Satti said that only because the husband (petitioner no. 1) and wife (complainant) had disagreements, the entire family had been brought into the conspiracy.

All of the petitioner’s relatives were involved in the family issues as a result, and they pleaded for anticipatory bail as a result. The bail application was rejected by the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. He said that the inquiry was ongoing and that section 307 of the IPC applied to the petitioners’ attempted murder of the complainant, disqualifying them from receiving pre-arrest bail.

COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTION:

On May 31, 2016, the petitioner and the complainant were legally wed. The complainant’s parents provided 20 tulas of gold as well as Rs. 5,00,00 in cash as dowry at the time of the marriage. The complainant further claims that right from the day of her marriage, the petitioner, his parents, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law began pressuring her for more dowry. The complainant claimed that the petitioners beat her and then attempted to strangle her with a scarf when she fell. She spoke with her uncle about the incident and in March 2022 she filed a report.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

The petitioners argued that they have been wrongly accused of the aforementioned Crime. According to the allegations in the complaint, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act and Sections 498-A R/w.34 of the IPC may only be used against the petitioners and not Section 307 of the IPC. The complainant, according to the learned counsel, did not have any medical examinations, and as a result, no wound certificate has been produced that documents her injuries.

DECISION

The Court determines that it is appropriate to grant the petitioners pre-arrest bail in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that all of the petitioner’s family members are becoming involved in the dispute which is between the petitioner and the complainant. Thus, the criminal petition was approved. The court further stated that the petitioners/accused shall be released on bail under the condition that each of them furnishes a self-bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties and they will also cooperate with the police.

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 329/2021

Equivalent Citation

2021 SCC OnLine SC 230

Bench

• Justice S Ravindra Bhat
• Justice AM Khanwilkar

Decided On

March 18, 2021

Relevant Act/Sections

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Brief Facts & Procedural History

The petition was filed by Advocate Aparna Bhat and eight other lawyers in response to an unjustified order issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 30, in which the accused of sexual assault was ordered to visit the victim’s home on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan with Rakhi and be tied by her as a condition of bail. The accused, who is a neighbour of the complainant Sarda Bai, entered her house on April 20, 2020, and attempted to sexually harass her, prompting the filing of (hereafter referred to as IPC). After the case was investigated, a charge sheet was filed. Under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused filed an application for anticipatory bail (hereafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) The accused was granted bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the affliction that he and his wife visit Sarda Bai’s house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan on August 3, 2020, with a package of sweets and ask her to tie the Rakhi to him with the pledge that he will protect her to the best of his ability in the future. The accused was also directed to hand up Rs. 11,000 as a gesture of gift given by brothers to their sisters as part of the customary Raksha Bandhan rites, which the petitioners have challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The petitioner filed a writ plea in the Supreme Court of India against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order. The following prayers were included in the petition:

1. The Supreme Court directed the High Courts and trial courts not to make such observations in situations of rape and sexual assault which would trivialize the anguish endured by the victim and impair their dignity.
2. The courts should not aim at compromises such as encouraging marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix and it should not be considered a judicial remedy. Compromises like this go against a woman’s honour and dignity. The petitioner cited the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal¹ in support of his claim.
3. The appellants further urged that no judge make any remarks or observations in the ruling that would reflect their prejudices and harm the woman’s dignity.
4. In circumstances of sexual assault, no such restriction should be imposed that permits the applicant to see the complainant or her family members. The court was requested to provide gender sensitization directives for the bar and bench, as well as law students.
5. Also, under Sections 437 and 438 of the Cr. P.C, the court was asked to set instructions on legally feasible bail terms.

Issues before the Court

• Can a compromise be struck between the accused and the victim in such instances?
• Is it acceptable for courts to issue such orders, and if so, what effect will such judgments have on society?
• Do such directions constitute to conduct of the trial in an unfair manner?
• Can the accused be permitted to meet the survivor or any of the members of her family?
• What, most importantly, should be the guidelines that courts should follow when granting bail and anticipatory bail?

Decision of the Court

In rape and sexual assault cases, the court clarified that no compromise can be made or even considered under any circumstances because it would be against her honour. Courts and other law enforcement authorities are intended to be neutral agencies and are tasked to guarantee the fair conduct of the trial by preserving impartiality and neutrality. And such techniques in rape and sexual assault trials would shatter rape survivors’ faith in the court’s impartiality. The court also noted that women’s status and society’s attitude toward them are both poor, and they suffer greatly. They are already experiencing numerous problems in their life for being a woman in our culture.

Judgements set precedents that the entire society adopts at different stages: By judicial decree, orders such as tying Rakhi on the accused’s wrist transform the molesters into brothers, reducing and degrading the charge of sexual harassment. Therefore, the use of reasoning/language which lessens the offence and seeks to belittle the victim is notably to be avoided under all circumstances. The law does not allow or condone such behaviour, in which the survivor may be traumatized several times or forced into some form of non-voluntary acceptance, or be pushed by circumstances to accept and condone behaviour that is a major violation.

The petitioners urged that the High Court’s decision should be overturned. The petitioners argued that Sections 437 (3)(c) and 438(2)(iv) of the CrPC permit courts to impose whatever condition they see proper in the public interest, but that the conditions must be consistent with the other provisions. When considering cases of rape and sexual assault, the court in Ramphal v. State of Haryana² concluded that compromise is irrelevant. The petitioner also requested that no judgement or order be passed by the court that could affect the dignity of women or the fair and unbiased conduct of trials, citing several cases where the apex court has rejected the idea of compromise on the grounds that it is antithetical to the woman’s honour and dignity and that it disparages and downgrades otherwise heinous crimes, implying that such offences are remediable by the judicial system.

The intervenors’ counsel argued that the court had the competence to impose sanctions under Sections 437(2) and 438. Requirements come in a broad variety of forms, and the court cited a number of cases in which judges imposed specific conditions for granting bail.

In its order, the Supreme Court framed various guidelines. These are as follows:

1. Contact between the accused and the complainant should never be allowed as a condition of bail, and if bail is granted, the complainant should be informed as soon as possible, along with a copy of the bail order being delivered to her within two days.
2. Bail conditions must precisely adhere to the stipulations of the Cr.P.C., and the order shall not represent patriarchal attitudes toward women.
3. Any offer to the accused and victim for a compromise, such as getting married or mandating mediation, should be ignored since it is outside the court’s authority.
4. The court has ordered a module as part of every judge’s basic training to ensure that judges are sensitive while considering cases involving sexual offenses and to minimize ingrained societal bias and sexism.
5. The National Judicial Academy has also been urged to integrate gender sanitization as soon as feasible in the training of young judges.
6. Similarly, the Bar Council of India has been mandated to incorporate gender sanitization in the LL.B. curriculum and as a mandatory topic in the All-India Bar Exam syllabus.

The Supreme Court commended the petitioner for his insightful ideas and overturned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s bail terms. The court has established certain criteria in this regard. It also agreed to the recommendations for a gender sensitization curriculum in law schools, as well as for the bar exam and introduction training for newly appointed judges.

Conclusion

The victims of sexual abuse have always been blamed on Indian society. Women have been questioned repeatedly about their behavior, clothing choices, attitude, and when they plan to leave their homes. During trials, judges have frequently reinforced this practice by questioning the victim and making remarks that stereotype particular behaviors and threaten to disrupt the trial. With the Supreme Court openly criticizing such behavior on the part of the courts, hope for judicial reform has been reignited. Gender sensitization seminars will also aid in raising awareness of the issue among legal professionals.

By delivering this order, the Supreme Court has established a significant precedent for courts to follow in dealing with sexual assault victims in the future. Discussing the faults of a patriarchal culture has set an example for its enormous audience. This will go down in history as a significant step toward women’s independence. It is hoped that if the standards are followed, we will not see such arbitrary conditions in judicial orders in the future.

Almost certainly that judges assume the most essential part as the educator, as the defender, and as the watchman, and anything they say turns into the points of reference that is then trailed by lower courts in their decisions, and consequently it turns out to be vital for the judges to take the most extensive level of care while offering any expression which influences the actual premise of legal executive and confidence of individuals. In cases connected with the assemblage of ladies and particularly in sexual offenses cases, even little mistakes either as a judgment or any assertion made by courts might prompt genuine offense against the survivors. There have been different examples of orientation related cases as of late when courts have believed the victim to make split the difference by permitting the accused to marry her or as in the present case by requesting him to get Rakhi tied on his wrist by the victim or by making some other split the difference as the court might coordinate. Such translations are horrendous in nature and show the quality of judges towards the ladies yet as it is said Judiciary is a self-recuperating process, present judgment by Supreme Court validated the explanation. Outlining the guidelines for orientation sterilization and adding it to the curriculum of LLB will assist the legal advisors with instilling the impartial and nonpartisan quality towards the ladies which will most likely assist the victims in fair direct preliminary with practically no dread on their part.

Intentional or otherwise, such comments by trial courts and high courts should be avoided at all costs. Judicial stereotyping is another term for this. When judges attach specific attributes to someone based on their gender, religion, caste, or race, this is known as judicial stereotyping. Judges often reinforce hazardous prejudices as a result of this, rather than questioning them as they are intended to. Because of the vast audience that court declarations serve; such remarks can have a greater social impact. Stereotyping also has the potential to undermine the judge’s impartiality, obstructing a fair trial. Creating rape myths or an idealized picture of a sexual assault victim also undermines the incident’s credibility and the harm suffered by survivors of sexual assault who do not fit the public image of a chaste lady.

Women are underrepresented in the legal profession, and women lawyers frequently experience discrimination and discriminatory remarks. As a result, in order to assure gender-biased-free judgments, the first step should be to create an equal environment within the institution and raise awareness about the issue. The answer to these ills comes from public discourse and keeping organizations with the potential to make a difference responsible. Such sexist judgments should be condemned and held up as an example of what is not acceptable behavior.

Citations:

1. (2015) 7 SCC 681
2. 2019 SC 1716

This case analysis is done by Arryan Mohanty, a 2nd Year Student student of Symbiosis Law School.

Recently during this Pandemic situation, there have been many instances reported where it has been noticed that advocates/lawyers misbehaving with the Police personnel and even insulting them while they were just performing their duty. This is a shame on the part of Advocates to do so.

As these instances don’t only take place during Pandemic situation but before occurring of Covid-19 there have been numerous similar matters of Advocates misbehaving with Police. On one petition Madras High Court has also framed rules which included the power to debar advocated for such misconduct. This was later struck down by Supreme Court.

Anticipatory bail was filed by an advocate and her daughter where they were alleged for verbal abuse with police regarding COVID lockdown violation. When the following matter came of hearing before Hon’ble Madras High Court felt the need to provide some permanent remedy to such problems that are occurring.

Justice M Dhandapani on Tuesday gave direction to Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to come up with such mechanism which could control the legal fraternity who involve themselves in indiscipline act and misbehave with police personnel on duty.

As such steps are required against those who are not respecting the Public servants and health workers who do their duty without fearing COVID. Which is a risk to them and their family members.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, on last Friday, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Azam Khan, the prominent leader of the Samajwadi Party and the Member of Parliament from his party. His motion was dismissed in kin with the unlawful appointment of more than one thousand clerks, stenographers, and engineers in the Jal Nigam of Uttar Pradesh, as he was the prime accused behind this unlawful act during his term as a minister in the SP government’s rule in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Petitioner’s Contention

The learned counsel of the applicant moved an application under section 438 of CrPC, i.e.- anticipatory bail, to avail some sort of relief from the Hon’ble High Court, on the account of being arrest arrested, and further taken into judicial custody in kin with the Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, charged under section 409, 420, 120-B, 201 and section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, Police Station SIT of Lucknow District. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant also contended that mereloy6 serving the jail authorities with B-warrant and communicating the same to the accused, nowhere signifies that the applicant has been retained in custody and hence the bail application under section 438 of the CrPC is maintainable. The learned counsel even argued, that even if the issuance of B-warrant has been done and communicated to the accused, yet the accused is entitled to bail as the charge sheet concerning this case was filed after the prescribed period of Ninety Days, by the investigation team.

Respondent’s Contention

The learned counsel on behalf of the state, contended that the F.I.R. was filed on 25.04.2018 on the grounds of the inquiry set up by the Special Investigating Team U.P., Lucknow regarding the felonies of biased enrichment, the disappearance of documents and destroying them, so that it cannot be laid as a piece of evidence against the criminal conspiracy of conspiring 1300 people on the post of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Clerk, and Stenographer.

It was further perceptible that the present F.I.R. was lodged against the other four by the conducting Investigation Officer. While the applicant was taken into custody concerning another case with F.I.R. No. 980 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur, an F.I.R. No. 392 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Azeem Nagar, District Rampur and put in District Jail, Sitapur. There is sheer evidence of a B-warrant issued by the court, which was received by the Jail Authorities and communicated the same to the applicant within a day. The facts and figured were laid down. Given all the facts and analysis, the applicant is considered to be in custody concerning the current F.I.R. No. 2 of 2018 and issued B-Warrant issued by the competent court under the provisions of Section 267(1) CrPC.

The Court’s Order

The division bench of Hon’ble High Court, headed by Justice Rajeev Singh, reject the motion of filing the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Azam Khan, and observed while doing, that the accused is already under detention and a B-warrant has been issued against him by the competent court under the section 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and has also been duly communicated to him. The Court further highlighted the fact that an FIR had already been lodged against the accused on the grounds of preliminary investigation, carried forward by the SIT, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The accused was held liable for the unlawful appointment of more than a thousand engineers, clerks, and stenographers giving them unjust enrichment, doing forgery, conspiracy, and destroying pieces of evidence for the same. The court also stated that “It is also evident that B-warrant was issued by the competent court on 18.11.2020 was received by the Jail Authorities of District Jail Sitapur who communicated the same to the applicant on 19.11.2020”. The division bench of the court also took into consideration, the case of Bobby (Paramveer) and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which they highlighted the key feature that while the Criminal Court issues the B-warrant, it has to satisfy the fact that the issuance of the same is just and proper. The issuance of the same means that the accused is already under detention. Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that the application moved by the accused, Azam Khan under section 438 of the CrPC is not maintainable, yet the court opened a way for the accused to move under regular bail if he so desires.