The Supreme Court of India opined that when the Courts are adjudicating on the applications under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the reliance needs to be placed on the gravity of the offence, material collected during the investigation and the statement of the Prosecutrix under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The Courts do not have to consider whether the custodial trial is required or not as this is a relevant consideration while deciding anticipatory bail and not bail under Section 439.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal is preferred by the Complainant against the order of the High Court of Karnataka vide which Respondent No.2 was released on bail.
Observations of the Karnataka High Court:
The High Court had considered the facts that firstly, the complaint was filed after 5 days after the alleged offence and secondly, that the allegations that the Accused had mixed some substance in the drinks to take sexual advantage of the Complainant are a matter of trial. There was no need to keep the Accused in custody and hence, bail was granted to the Accused.
Observations of the Supreme Court:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider that the complainant after regaining consciousness went to the hospital first and after that when she tried to lodge the FIR, the complaint was not taken. The bench remarked that the consideration that even the victim/complainant could take some time to get out of the shock before lodging the FIR needs to be considered during the trial.
The Apex Court further opined that while considering applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the Court needs to place reliance on the material collected during the investigation and not on whether the custodial trial is required or not. Whether a custodial trial is needed is a relevant consideration while adjudicating on anticipatory bail applications.
The decision of the Court:
The Top Court, keeping in mind, the gravity of the offence, material collected during the investigation, and statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. set aside the order passed by the Karnataka High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court.
Accordingly, the present appeal was allowed.
Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2022 Latest CaseLaw 908 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1981/2022
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Ms. Jayna Kothari, Ms. Anindita Pujari. Mr. Azad Bandala, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Ms. Ayushi Saraogi
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Mr. Vishal Banshal, Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Mr. Niroop Sukrithy, Mr. Mohd. Ovais
Picture Source :