The Jharkhand High Court while denying anticipatory bail to the appellant, accused under the POCSO Act observed that pre-arrest bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and further reiterated that while deciding applications for anticipatory bail, courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences and the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), whereby and whereunder the prayer for pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 370, 376, 366-A, 120(B) of Penal Code, under Sections 4 and 12 of Protection of Children From the Sexual Offences Act, has been rejected.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by referring to the first information report that there is no specific allegation against the appellants and as such, it is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail but the learned trial court below without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has rejected the instant bail application of the appellants.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail by referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein the names of the appellants have been disclosed as preparatory of the alleged offence and further the appellant no.1 has been disclosed as the person who committed rape with the victim.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that it has been settled by the Apex Court time and again in its various pronouncements that the pre-arrest bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime, as a grant of anticipatory bail to some extent, interference in sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such powers and further the grant or refusal of the application of the pre-arrest bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court.
Further, the court referred to the judgement in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) wherein it was held that while deciding applications for anticipatory bail, courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences and the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case.
Further, the court referred to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she fully supported the prosecution version against both the appellants of subjecting her to physical assault by committing rape upon her and stated that the names of both the appellants have been disclosed by the victim in her statement and thus it t is not a fit case where the privilege of anticipatory bail is to be granted to the appellants.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order.
Case Title: Shamim Ansari and anr. vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1408 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar and Mrs. Pinki Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
