Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of H.C. Mishra and Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, JJ. allowed the appeals while setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting and sentencing the appellants.

In the pertinent case, the dispute was over land and its illegal possession wherein the accused were held guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and the Trial Court even sentenced the accused accordingly. The Court was approached because there were discrepancies in the FIR and the statements provided by the prosecution witnesses, where they first stated that the occurrence had taken place in the hut and they could not see which accused was armed with what weapon. Subsequently, in evidence, the place was changed to the land in question and improvements were made on the details as to which accused was armed with what weapon and the person who assaulted. Also, the Investigation Officer (IO) was not examined because of which the necessary implications could not be taken from the IO. Even the Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination was not examined in the case.

The Court in the interest of justice looked into the case diary with the help of the learned senior counsel, Mr V.P. Singh, where it became apparent that the non-examination of the IO has vitally prejudiced the defence in the case and even the place of occurrence has not been properly proved in the case. The Court further believed that, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellants in the absence of the evidence of the IO and the Doctor. Therefore, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence ordered by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge and discharged the appellants from their respective liabilities.[Manik Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 512 of 2008, Order dated 11-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Jaishree Thakur, J., under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code invoking the inherent power of High Court seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 34 of Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered between the parties.

Facts of the case were that the respondent was married with petitioner and out of this wedlock, a child was born. However, temperamental differences arose between the husband and wife and FIR was registered by respondent. But the same was compromised between the two with the intervention of respectable persons. It was submitted before the Court that their statements were recorded in support of the compromise. In pursuance of which a report was received from the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) stating that the compromise was done without any pressure or coercion from anyone. DAG, Haryana had admitted before the Court that the parties had settled their dispute and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

High Court was of the view that a decision which is based on compromise causes no loss to any party rather it would bring peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute and restore tranquility in the society. In the light of nature of offence alleged and compromise entered between the parties continuing the prosecution was considered futile. Therefore, this petition was allowed and FIR was quashed. [Vikas Khatri v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-38284-2017 (O&M), decided on 01-08-2018]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Division Bench of Dost Muhammad Khan and Qazi Faez Isa, JJ. allowed an appeal against order convicting a person for the offence of defiling Quran, for lack of any evidence in support of offence.

Appellant herein was alleged to have desecrated the Holy Quran and was charged for an offence under Section 295-B of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC). It was alleged that he had masturbated in the centre of a mosque and then smeared his semen on the Holy Quran. Allegedly this act was seen by one Muhammad Akhtar who was deaf and dumb. The trial Court convicted the appellant and Lahore High Court affirmed the said order. Aggrieved thereby, a jail petition was filed, which was converted into an appeal by this Court.

The Court noted that the FIR, in this case, was lodged with an inexplicable delay of five days. The interpreter of Muhammad Akhtar’s sign language who, himself was a witness had not been administered any oath, which was contrary to Section 543 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. There were disagreements between witnesses regarding the date of occurrence of the offence.

It was observed that the purported confession of the accused before panchayat was after he had been kept in the custody of complainants, and beaten by them. Further, eleven pages were removed from the Holy Quran and only those pages were sent for chemical examination. Though it was confirmed that there were semen stains on the pages, no effort was made for the DNA test and semen matches. It was, thus, opined that the prosecution failed to act independently and fairly in the present case.

The Court concluded that punishment for an offence under Section 295-B PPC is imprisonment for life, therefore, it was necessary that the prosecution and the trial Court had proceeded with caution. Unfortunately, in this case even the basic parameters of proof required in a criminal case were completely disregarded.

In view of the absence of any tangible evidence, innumerable contradictions, the abject failure of the prosecution to act independently, and violation of criminal procedural laws, the conviction and sentence of appellant was held unsustainable and accordingly set aside.[Muhammad Mansha v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2017, Order dated 15-01-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner filed before the bench of Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., an application for grant of anticipatory bail where FIR was registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 325, 148 and 149 of Penal Code.

The FIR was filed alleging petitioner that he inflicted a blow with kirch in the stomach of the complainant and his nephew was also injured in the process. Petitioner submitted that genesis of occurrence was suppressed as he himself had received 7 injuries. Further, the incident occurred in a shop possessed by the petitioner which shows that complainant was the aggressor. Whereas the respondent submitted that since petitioner was specifically mentioned in the FIR and allegations against him were duly established in the Medico-Legal Report thus no case for anticipatory bail was made out.

High Court perused a judgment passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar where an uncle of the complainant, had filed a civil suit against a petitioner seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from causing any damage to the shops. The aforementioned suit was dismissed where the petitioner had failed to establish entitlement towards a suit property. As stated by petitioner the appeal against the above was dismissed. However, the Court was of the view that since petitioner had 7 injuries whose aggressor was not certain anticipatory bail must be granted. [Raj Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 151, dated 26-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: K.K. Sonawane, J., while reversing the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, allowed pre-arrest bail applications of appellants filed under Section 438 CrPC.

The appellants were accused of assaulting the complainant and abusing him using filthy language while referring to his caste “Adiwasi”. An FIR was lodged and a criminal case was registered under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Apprehending arrest by Police, the appellants rushed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge for the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. However, he rejected all the applications. This order was the subject matter of present appeals.

S.K. Chavan and R.J. Nirmal, Advocates representing the appellants submitted that they were students taking education in Agricultural College who had no concern with the alleged crime and were falsely implicated. Per contra, D.S. Jape, Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that Section 18-A of SC/ST Act puts an embargo on the Court for exercising powers under Section 438 CrPC.

On perusing the FIR, the High Court was of the view that prima facie, ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)(s) did not match with factual score of the present case. Relying on its earlier decisions, the Court observed, “in spite of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, for invocation of powers under Section 438 of the CrPC, it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the FIR of the case itself is as to whether prima facie case is made out by the complainant against appellants.” Opining that incriminating circumstances to show that “intentional insult” or “intimidation with intent to humiliate” the complainant within public view on the part of appellants were lacking in this case, the High Court held it to be a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted to them. Hence, the impugned order was quashed and the appeals were allowed. [Krishna v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 341, decided on 27-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. dismissed a petition praying for the arrest of a few persons named in a first information report.

Petitioner herein had lodged a police case against Respondent’s 6 to 9 for offence under Sections 304-B, 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. Since the said respondents had not been arrested so far, the instant petition was filed praying for a direction to the State to arrest them.

The Court observed that there may be a case in which innocent persons may be implicated in the criminal case. The police in course of an investigation may not like to arrest such person. On completion of investigation, the police may submit a report that those persons named in the FIR are innocent. There may be a case where even informant may turn into the category of accused in the same police case. In such cases also, it would be highly unfair to arrest a person, who may be innocent and whose name is maliciously be given by the informant in the FIR.

It was opined that only because a person is named in the first information report, the Court would not issue any direction for the arrest of those persons. Since the instant police case was under investigation; to arrest or to not arrest an accused named in the FIR was within the exclusive domain of police. In view thereof, it was held that it would be highly unsafe for a Court to issue direction, while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction, to the respondent authorities to arrest a person named in the FIR.[Govinda Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 248, Order dated 25-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that the parties had settled the dispute between themselves.

The counsels for the parties submitted that parties had buried their differences and entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would have been served if the criminal case was to be continued.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 which had considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the criminal proceedings against the offender, who had settled his dispute with the victim of the crime in a case, where crime is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. The Court held that in view of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the applicants and the possibility of a conviction being remote and bleak, the FIR shall be quashed. [Abdul Rahman v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 87, Order dated 18-02-2019]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. set aside an order framing charges under Sections 306 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against petitioner.

The facts of the case were that one Amandeep Singh committed suicide after two years of marriage with the petitioner’s daughter. Pursuant to the dispute between the two families, the deceased’s wife left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased left his house and told his sister on the phone that he was disturbed because of his wife and was going to take his life by jumping in a canal. Later, his car and other belongings along with a gift bag were found near the canal with a note stating “I love U Aman Best Wishes for ours next life. This is last gift for you by me. Muhha Putt love you.”

A First Information Report was registered by father of the deceased – Ranjit Singh – under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and his daughter – Amanpreet Kaur. After completion of the investigation, the trial Court passed an order framing charges under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC, against petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the instant revision petition was filed.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no direct allegation of abetment against them. Further, the deceased’s suicide note did not suggest that he had leveled any allegations against the petitioners, rather, he had shown his affection towards his wife. It was further argued that nothing on record to show that the petitioners have ever abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court, opined that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine facts and circumstances of the case to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left him with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. The person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain actions to facilitate the commission of suicide. Reliance was placed on Apex Court’s dictum in Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh, (2007) 11 SCC 205 and Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628.

It was held that there was nothing on record to show that by way of willful conduct of the petitioners, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Allegations in the FIR, as well as the material collected during the investigation, did not prima facie constitute offence under Section 306 IPC as no material has come on record to support the allegations/charge against the petitioners. The alleged suicide note only reflected deceased’s love towards his wife and there was no indication of any harassment. Thus, the impugned order was set aside.[Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 11, decided on 09-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J., allowed a petition filed by a husband seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC.

Quashment was sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement dated 12-5-2017 reached between the parties. The wife, who was present and identified before the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved vide the Mediated Settlement. She supported the present petition.

The husband and other petitioners were represented by Meenakshi Mohan and Kunal. Advocates. Izhar Ahmad appeared as Additional Public Prosecutor, while Harish Kumar Lodhi, Advocate appeared for the wife.

The High Court relied on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the parameters for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR/Criminal Complaint. After extensively quoting from Parbatbhai, the High Court observed, “since the subject matter of this FIR is offshoot of matrimonial discord, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.” Accordingly, the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom were directed to be quashed subject to costs of Rs 10,000 to deposited by petitioners with the Prime Minister’s  National Relief Fund. [Mukesh Rajput v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7087, decided on 08-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Karuna Nand Bajpayee and Ifaqat Ali Khan, JJ. dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report filed against the petitioner for offences committed under Sections 148, 307, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Court observed that grounds for quashing of FIR are well-settled, and thus in such cases court must refrain itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into details of the case. It was noted that all the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel related to the determination of disputed questions of fact which may be adequately discerned either through proper investigation or adjudicated by the trial court. The ambit of an investigation into the alleged offence is an independent area of operation and does not call for interference except in rarest of rare cases. Relying on Ajit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 SCC OnLine All 1409 it was opined that operational liberty to collect sufficient material, if any, cannot be scuttled prematurely by any uncalled for overstepping of the Court. 

The Court held that perusal of the case records, prima facie, made out the offence alleged and there appeared to be sufficient ground for investigation in the case. In view thereof, prayer for quashing FIR was refused. However, it was directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested unless credible evidence against him is collected by the Investigating Officer.[Umar Mohd. v. State of U.P, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 330 of 2019, Order dated 08-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Sonia Gokani, J. disposed of a petition with the direction to lodge the FIR if any cognizable offence is made out; and if not, reasons to be mentioned for not lodging an FIR to the complainant at the earliest but not later that one week.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was aggrieved by non-registration of the FIR on the basis of the complaint given in writing by him. He contended that a cognizable offence was made out and still his FIR was not registered.

The Court while relying on the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. For the purpose of knowing as to whether any cognizable offence was revealed, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted. Still, if it is not made out, reasons are to be mentioned for not lodging an FIR to the complainant at the earliest but not later that one week in a cognizable offence. [Haripriyaben Sanjaykumar Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 239, Order dated 06-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed a petition filed against the judgment of Revisional Court whereby petitioner’s / complainant’s in-laws were discharged of the offences under  Sections 498-A and 34 IPC.

In 2013, petitioner had filed an FIR against her husband and in-laws alleging harassment. It was alleged that her husband used to come late and beat the petitioner and when she complained to her in-laws, they behaved in the same manner. She was thrown out of the matrimonial house and was threatened not to enter again.

Anuj Kr Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioner submitted that there was sufficient material on record to substantiate framing of charge under Section 498-A. Per contra, Kishan N. Rana, Advocate for in-laws submitted that allegations against them were bald and even the investigation did not ravel any incriminating material.

After perusing the FIR, it was noted by the High Court that “in one breath, the petitioner named all the family members without specific role ascribed to any one of them.”Though instances were mentioned vis-a-vis her mother-in-law and brother of father-in-law, however, no specifics about date, time or place were given. Omnibus allegations were made which according to the Court did not justify framing a charge under Section 498-A as “for a change to be framed, the evidence gathered by the prosecution should not only give rise to suspicion but there should be grave suspicion that the accused have committed the offence.” Consequently, the petition was dismissed. It may be noted that in the present case, a charge was framed against the husband who was facing trial. [Anju v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6865, dated 04-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: R.K. Gauba, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of Sessions Court whereby proceedings in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were stayed.

Petitioner had filed a case against respondents alleging commission of an offence under Section 138. It was alleged that he had advanced a loan to the respondents, for the repayment of which, the respondents had issued a cheque in his favour drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. However, on presenting the cheque, it was returned unpaid with remarks “payment stopped by drawer.” After a preliminary enquiry, Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to respondents. Thereafter the respondents reached the Sessions Court which granted a stay on summons order till final decision in another case arising out of an FIR filed by respondents against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

The High Court noted that in the FIR filed, respondents alleged that the cheque in question was stolen and misappropriated by the petitioner. It was also noted that revisional court stayed the proceedings under Section 138 on the ground that the same would unnecessarily prejudice the trial in the case arising out of the FIR. The High Court held this to be totally unjust and unfair. It was stated “Though questions would arise in the criminal case under Section 138 NI Act as to whether cheque in question had come in the hands of the petitioner legitimately or not, the contentions of the respondents are a matter of defence which will have to be raised by them, the burden of proof of the requisite facts in such regard being placed on them. There is no reason why the case arising out of above-mentioned FIR should have primacy or priority over the case of the petitioner against the opposite party.” The petition was thus allowed and the impugned stay order was allowed. [Mukesh Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6843, decided on 28-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The application was filed before the Bench of S.C. Sharma, J. under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.

Applicants were apprehending their arrest for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code registered with Police Station Pandrinath, Indore. Applicant 1 was the husband and other applicants were the father and mother-in-law of the complainant. Applicant 1 had stated that after 15-20 days of his marriage with complainant he came to Indore. Applicants were alleged for dowry demand and cruelty to complainant. Applicants contended that complainant was having an affair with someone and she was stopped from chatting with him. Even after efforts to peacefully end the marriage, a false complaint against applicants was made. Further, they submitted that they are respectable persons and they do not intend to abscond. It was brought before Court that FIR was lodged against the applicants only after a suit for divorce was filed.

High Court was of the view that bail ought to be granted to the applicants and the applicants should adhere to the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) CrPC. [Kunal Bagdi v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 215, Order dated 30-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Bench of S.H. Vora, J. allowed the special leave petition and quashed the impugned order of detention by the respondent.

In the present case the petitioner was detained by the respondent under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 as a ‘bootlegger’ as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. It was contended that the alleged activity could be a breach of law and order but cannot be breach of maintenance of public order.

The Court held that the offences alleged in the FIRs are dealt under relevant penal laws but do not fall within the ambit of the Act mentioned. Further, it referred to Pushker Mukherjee v. State of W.B., (1969) 1 SCC 10 to distinguish between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’. And since except general statements there was no relevant and cogent material on record to show that all social apparatus was in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it does not fall within the definition under Section 2(b) of the Act. [Vijaypal Sudarshanpal Pal v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 159, Order dated 29-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Narayan Singh Dhanik J. disposed a compounding application along with a criminal writ petition and quashed the First Information Report filed against the accused applicant on the ground of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties.

The instant application had been filed for quashing FIR registered against the applicant under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-applicant and respondent-complainant entered into a compromise whereby the loss suffered by respondent was duly compensated and dispute between both the parties had been amicably settled. The complainant had no grudge or grievance against the accused-applicant and hence he was not interested in further prosecution.

The Court observed that though the complainant can be permitted to enter into the compromise for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, but for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the complainant has no right to enter into a compromise with the accused. However, it was opined that in the present case, as the complainant and accused had willingly and amicably arrived at compromise; and complainant was not interested in further prosecution, therefore it would be futile to permit future trial inasmuch as it would not reach to its logical and correct conclusion as there is great possibility of witnesses turning hostile.

In view of the above, compromise arrived at between the parties was accepted and the compounding application was allowed. [Akil Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 10, Order dated 16-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: This writ petition was filed before the Bench of Rajan Gupta, J., where he addressed five writ petition together which challenged the recommendations given by Zora Singh Commission Report and Ranjit Singh Commission Report where they had to inquire into the incidents of sacrilege and alleged role played by various person, the role of police officials who were alleged of improper and delayed investigation. Thereby, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the above two report’s recommendation.

There were three incident of alleged sacrilege relating to one sarup (set) of Guru Granth Sahib. Various protests were done which turned into major agitation leading to firing by police, as a consequence of which two people had died and few injured. On all three occasions, FIRs were filed. In aftermath of these incidents, the State Government formed Zora Singh Commission deriving its powers from the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. Later when elections took place new Government was formed which formed Rajan Singh Commission for an inquiry into the same matter as was inquired by Zora Singh Commission.

Petitioner contended that Section 7 of the Act was not complied according to which, a new commission for an inquiry could not have been created without de-notifying the Commission formed by the previous Government. Advocate General for State referred a case of Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, 1967 (3) SCR 668 and mentioned that the Court could not have interfered with the investigation being carried out or direct it to act in a particular manner.

High Court was of the view that SIT should not be swayed by the observations made by the Commissions. Observations of Commissions are meant only to instruct the mind of Government in order to prevent such incidents in the future. The SIT should conduct a fair, impartial and speedy investigation. It is to be remembered that Commission report are not adjudicatory in nature and have no binding force, is a settled law in light of the above-referred case of Abhinandan Jha. Therefore, this writ petition was dismissed with the aforementioned directions.[Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 66, decided on 25-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: The Bench of H.S. Thangkhiew, J. hearing a bail application filed by an accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, denied grant of bail opining that the accused was a threat to the victim.

First Information Report was lodged against the accused for committing offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He was in custody since the date of his arrest as successive bail applications filed by him were rejected by the Special Judge.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation against accused had been completed and hence his further detention was not necessary. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that bail should be denied as there were no new facts or materials warranting consideration of grant of bail. Also, the accused was trying to cast undue influence and harassment on the victim by coercing her to enter into a compromise. The said fact of coercion was also recorded in the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail.

The Court opined that normally, after chargesheet is filed, custody of the accused is not needed as the investigation is complete, and since evidence is already collected by the police, there are fewer chances of destruction or concealment of evidence. However, chances of threatening of witnesses may still exist. In the instant case, there was a reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with as there were threats to the complainant and the minor victim girl.

It was held that the nature and gravity of circumstances of the offence which involved a minor victim girl under the POCSO Act, and the conduct of accused towards the victim and witnesses weighed against the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present application was rejected.[Sumanta Deka v. State of Meghalaya, 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 1, Order dated 07-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of A.Y. Kogje, J. allowed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(I)(N) IPC and under Sections 3(A), 4, 5(L), 6, 7, 8, 11(6) and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The cardinal fact that was taken into account was that the applicant was aged 24 years, unmarried and was a student whereas the prosecutrix was aged 16 years. The Court while allowing the application stated that by history narrated before the Medical Officer, the element of love affair could not have been ruled out and therefore the present was found to be a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail. [Harsul v. State of  Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 68, Order dated 16-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of A.Y. Kogje, J., allowed the application for bail sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The Court considered that there was no recovery or discovery from the applicant regarding the offence. No identification was carried out. Further, there was no evidence connecting the applicant with the offence. Basically, the opposite party was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant. The court while allowing the application held that the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report were bald and thus it was a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. [Anil Bhawan Vaskeliya v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 38, decided on 11-01-2019]