Yumnam Surjit Kumar Singh vs The Officer-In-Charge
2022 Latest Caselaw 435 Mani

                                                                                 Page |1


         Digitally signed
KABOR    by
         KABORAMBAM                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AMBAM    LARSON
         Date:
                                               AT IMPHAL

LARSON   2022.10.15
         12:12:18 +05'30'
                                                 AB No.40 of 2022


                      Yumnam Surjit Kumar Singh, aged about 42 years, S/o. Y. Ingba
                      Mangang of Khwai Kongkham Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
                      District : Imphal East, Manipur.
                                                                        ....... Petitioner/s
                                                     - Versus -
                   1. The Officer-in-Charge,     Women Police Station, Imphal West,
                      Manipur having its Office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal
                      West District, Manipur-795004.


                   2. Ms. Wangkhem Deebika Devi, aged about 24 years, D/o. W. Naba
                      of Kakwa.

                                                                       .... Respondent/s

With AB No.41 of 2022

Yambem Nonibala Chanu @ Sonia, aged about 29 years, D/o Y. Kulla, a resident of Bamon Kampu Yambem Leikai, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.

....... Petitioner/s

- Versus -

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |2

1. The Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Imphal

West, Manipur having its Office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S.

Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

2. Ms. Wangkhem Deebika Devi, aged about 24 years, D/o. W. Naba of Kakwa.

.... Respondent/s

With AB No.42 of 2022

Laishram Kunjarani Devi, aged about 28 years, D/o L. Ibopishak Singh, a resident of Top Khongmakhong, P.O. & P.S. : Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.

....... Petitioner/s

- Versus -

1. The Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Imphal West, Manipur having its Office at Lamphel, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.

2. Ms. Wangkhem Deebika Devi, aged about 24 years, D/o. W. Naba of Kakwa.

.... Respondent/s

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |3

With AB No.43 of 2022

S.K. Wajid Shah, aged about 34 years, S/o. S.K. Karimuddin of Hangul Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, District : Thoubal, Manipur.

....... Petitioner/s

- Versus -

1. The Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Imphal West;

2. Ms. Wangkhem Deebika Devi, (complainant) aged about 24 years, D/o. W. Naba of Kakwa Lamdaibung, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District: Imphal West, Manipur - 795008.

.... Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. Jotendro, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent/ No.1 In all AB Petitions : Mr. Y. Ashang, PP For the Respondent/ No.2 In all AB Petitions : Mr. M. Rakesh, Advocate

Date of Hearing & Reserved : 14.09.2022

Judgment & Order : 10.10.2022

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |4

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section

438 Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in

connection with FIR No.44(8)2022 under Sections 366/376/417/120-B/34 IPC

on the file of the Women Police Station, Imphal West. Since the parties and

the points for determination in all four Anticipatory Bail Petitions are one and

same arising out of same FIR, they are taken up together and disposed of by

this Common Order.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.8.2022 at 5.00 P.M., the

victim lodged a complaint before the first respondent police station that on

14.8.2022 at around 1.00 P.M., her Institute Teachers Sonia Yambem

(petitioner in AB No.41 of 2022); Kunjarani (petitioner in AB No.42 of 2022)

came to her resident located at KakwaLamdaibung near Sangai Tuition

Centre, picked up for going picnic at Andro Park. On reaching the Andropark,

she found Surjitkumar (petitioner in AB No.40 of 2022) and Wajid (petitioner in

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |5

AB No.43 of 2022) and some other staff and colleagues of her Institute

namely Saina Institute of Medical Sciences 9SIMS), Porompat. There, they

had lunch and move out from Andro at 5.00 P.M. by car with Sonia and

Kunjarani driver by Wajid. On the way returning from Andro to her residence,

after drinking the cold drink (sprite) inside the car and under intoxication,

Sonia, Kunjarani and Wajid brought her to an unknown place. She felt drowsy

and semi-conscious when her teachers dropped her till the bed by holding her

side by side at the unknown place. At around 9.30 P.M., when she regained

her conscious, she was on the bed and the petitioner in AB No.40 of 2022

was sitting beside her. Meanwhile, she asked him about her teachers, but he

stated that they are eloped and teachers left. Despite her opposition, the

victim was forcibly raped by the petitioner in AB No.40 of 2022 twice by

locking the door without her consent, which she could not be able to be

struggled due to intoxication and it was around 10.00 P.M. Next day, the

victim learnt that the house belongs to teacher Wajid located at Sekmaijing.

When the family of Surjitkumar arrived, she told them that he forcibly eloped

and raped her against her consent, but they have not listen her words. She

disclosed whatever they did to her parents when she returned home. On

receipt of the complaint the WPS, Imphal West registered a case in FIR

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |6

No.44(08)2022 under Sections 366/376/417/120-B/34 IPC against the

accused and took up the matter for investigation and searching the accused.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner in AB No.40 of 2022

[Surjitkumar] came to know the victim from her facebook account and they

have love affairs for the last about 5 years. On 14.8.2022, the petitioner in

Surjitkumarand the victim participated in a picnic programme at Andro village

and after the picnic party, they decided to elope for love marriage.

Accordingly, they eloped on the same day and stayed the night at

MayangImphal. On the following day, they came back to the house of the

petitioner Surjitkumarand in the morning some elder male members of his

family, including his father visited the residence of the victim for "Haidokpa

Ceremony" and they returned home without having any objection from the

victim's family. Thereafter, on 15.8.2022 at 5.00 P.M., the victim was

escorted by elder female members of petitioner Surjitkumarto her residence.

However, to the surprise and their dismay, one lady said to be the elder sister

of the victim came out suddenly and started beating the victim by holding the

hair. At that time, there was a scuffle between the parties and later on

16.8.2022, the victim was forced to lodge a complaint to the police against the

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |7

petitioners herein. Thus, according to the petitioners, there is possibility of the

petitioners being arrested by the police in connection with the FIR 44(8)2022,

which was lodged afterthought and duress.Hence, the petitioners seek

anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR.

4. Opposing the petitions, the first respondent police filed affidavit-in-

opposition stating that after registering the case on file, the investigating

officer took up the case for investigation, the victim was examined and in her

statement she stated that on the way of returning from Andro to her house,

she was administered some intoxicants inside the car and she became semi-

conscious and was held by the petitioners in AB Nos.41 and 42 of 2022 side

by side and took her to a room of an unknown place and they dropped till the

bed. At around 9.30 P.M., the victim regained her sense and found she was

on the bed and petitioner Surjitkumar was sitting on the bed. When she

asked him about her two teachers, he stated that they are eloped and the

teachers already left. The petitioner Surjitkumar also said that while the victim

was unconscious, he already had sexual relationship with her.

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |8

5. It is stated that due to paucity of time, the recording of the victim's

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could not be completed and the medical

report of the victim is also yet to the received from the department. Several

attempts have been made to cause arrest of the accused at different

locations, including Bishnupur, Kumbi, Samthel, Hangul and Ngaikhong etc.

by preparing house search to the area where they were suspected to be

hiding, but they are evading from police arrest till date. The petitioners are

very much required for interrogation by arrest. Hence, prayed for dismissal of

the petitions.

6. Opposing the petitions, the victim who has been arrayed as second

respondent, has filed affidavit stating that she did not admit that she is

pursuing nursing course at SIMS as alleged and in fact she got admitted at

SIMS of her own volition for undergoing two years Diploma in Dialysis and

after pursuing the said course, the victim gave up the said course and started

pursing B.Sc. in Echocardiography at SIMS. The victim never had long drives

and outings to different places and during the educational trip to Gao, the

petitioner Surjitkumartook photographs with many students one after another

and he did not take photographs with the victim in isolation and the

photographs showing holding of hands were modified one from a group

photographs. It is stated that during the entire period of study at SIMS, the

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 Page |9

victim did not have any relationship with the petitioner Surjitkumarexcept the

teacher-student relationship and she showed respect to the petitioner

Surjitkumar being the Managing Director of SIMS.

7. It is stated in the affidavit that thereafter the petitioner Surjitkumarand

Wajid took her to another unknown place and there she was forcibly raped by

the petitioner Surjitkumar twice by locking the door without her consent. Next

day, the victim came to know that the house belongs to the petitioner Wajid.

On 15.8.2022 morning, the Surjitkumar'sfamily came to Sekmaijing and at that

time she told them that Surjitkumar forcibly eloped and raped against her will,

but they does not listen to her request. Thereafter, the victim was brought to

the house of the petitioner Surjitkumarand while she was in his house,

Surjitkumar and his family members consoled her to say that the elopement

was happened with her consent. Thereafter, the victim narrated whatever the

petitionershad done to her when she returned home.

8. In her affidavit opposing the anticipatory bail in respect of the

petitioners in AB Nos.41 to 43 of 2022, the victim also stated that when her

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 10

teachers Sonia made a phone call on 13.8.2022 asked the victim about the

preparation for the picnic, the victim answered that due to personal difficulties,

she would not be able to attend and inspite of that on 14.8.2022, the

petitioners Sonia and Kunjarani came to her house and picked up in a white

colour car and was taken to the picnic at Andro where she found around 20

individuals including the teachers, staff and students. After having their

dinner, when they came back to the spot where the while colour car was

parked, the said car was not found and the petitioner Wajid offered to drive

them back. Accordingly, the petitioners Sonia, Kunjarani and younger sister

of Kunjarani boarded the car. After driving for some distance, petitioner Sonia

gave her a cold drink inside the car and after having three sips, the victim

started feeling drowsy.

9. It is stated that the petitioner Wajid stopped the car and the victim

was taken to an unknown place by the petitioners Sonia and Kunjarani and

after some time when the victim gains conscious she found the petitioner

Surjitkumar sitting on the bed. When the victim asked about the teachers, he

replied that they had left. Then the petitioner Surjitkumar told her that they

had already eloped and would not be able to drop her at her house. At that

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 11

time, the victim told the petitioner Surjitkumar that she would die rather than

elope with him. While doing so, the petitioner Wajid came inside the room

and proposed for shifting the victim to another place. Thereafter, the

petitioners Surjitkumar and Wajid forcibly lifted her and took inside the car and

drove her to an unknown place. When she was taken inside the room she

saw a certificate of the petitioner Wajid on the wall.

10. It is stated that on 14.8.2022, the petitioner Surjitkumar forcibly

raped the victim without her consent. The victim tried to fight him off but was

physically helpless due to intoxication. The petitioner Surjitkumar then told

her to admit that she had eloped with him with her full consent and threatened

her with dire consequences if she do not do as he said. Fearing for her life

and the consequences, she did not say anything as she want to reach home

safely. Again on the next day morning i.e. on 15.8.2022, the petitioner

Surjitkumar forcibly raped the victim again without her consent.

11. It is stated that after the said incident the victim enquired someone

inside the house about the location of the place, who then told her that it is

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 12

Sekmaijin village and on the same day at around 8.00 P.M., the parents of the

petitionerSurjitkumarbrought the victim to her house. While dropping her off,

they also handed over a new iPhone, a bundle of Rs.500/- currencies, gold

ornaments, clothes etc. However, the same were returned to them. Later

around 1.00 A.M. on 16.8.2022, the victim's phone was returned back.

Thereafter, the victim narrated the horrific incident to her parents. Stating so,

the victim prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petitions.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner

Surjitkumarand the victim have love affairs and willingly eloped, therefore,

there is no offence as alleged by the victim. He would submit that the

petitioner Surjitkumaris from a respectable family and he is the Founder and

Managing Director of SIMS, which is a recognized affiliated nursing college,

having no criminal antecedent and because of the registration of the FIR

case, he has all reasons to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation

of having committed the alleged offenses stated in the FIR, which are false

and baseless and afterthought.

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 13

13. The learned counsel further submitted that the nature of accusation

is quite baseless, inasmuch as the victim was spending good and happy times

with the petitioner for the last 5 years by enjoying gift items, cash, gold rings

and chain, beautiful dresses, birthday gifts and many others and now she is

reverting all her attitude and stands against the petitioner Surjitkumarby

lodging a complaint.

14. Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners

submitted that as far as the petitioner in AB No.41 of 2022 is concerned, she

has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid charges, as she simply joined the

picnic and there is no question of collusion with any parties for someone

personal gain and to let a person rob the dignity of a girl.

15. Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners

would submit that as far as the petitioner in AB No.42 of 2022 is concerned,

she is presently living with her son at the parental home, after leaving her

marital home due to various cruelties committed by her husband. Presently,

there is no one except her who is taking care for her minor son who is in need

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 14

of breastfeeding and, as such, in the event, she is arrested, her son will suffer.

In fact, she has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid charges, as she

simply joined the picnic and there is no question of collusion with any parties.

16. Coming to the petitioner in AB No.43 of 2022, Mr. N. Jotendro, the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is from a

respectable family having no criminal antecedent as he was never imprisoned

or otherwise conviction by any Court. He submits that the petitioner in AB

No.43 of 2022 is serving as Deputy Director of SIMS, which is a reputed

Government recognized and affiliated nursing college founded by the

petitioner Surjitkumar. The petitioner in AB No.43 of 2022 is no way related to

the alleged offences and his name was not mentioned in the FIR. According

to the learned counsel, the petitioner in AB No.43 of 2022 allowed the victim

and Surjitkumarto stay the night of 14.8.2022 at his residence at Sekmaijin

village, as on that day there was no incident or gesture of any coercion or

otherwise upon the victim as she was happily came with the petitioner

Surjitkumar to his residence. If the respondent police arrested the petitioner

in AB No.43 of 2022 in connection with the FIR case, his good image and

reputation in society will be tarnished forever which may not be compensated

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 15

in any manner. Arguing so, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for

anticipatory bail to all the petitioners.

17. Per contra, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that the victim was picked up for going picnic at Andro park by the petitioners

in AB Nos.41 and 42 of 2022 from her residence and on reaching the park,

she found the petitioner Surjitkumar. After finishing picnic, when the victim

and the petitioners in AB No.41 and 42 of 2002 were returning in car driven by

the petitioner in AB No.43 of 2022 along with the petitioner Surjitkumar, they

had given some cold drink to the victim and after consuming the cold drink,

the victim fell semi-conscious and taking advantage of the drowsy, kidnapped

herto the residence of the petitioner in AB No.43 of 2022 and after reaching

the said residence, the petitioners in AB Nos.41 and 42 of 2002 were left.

While the victim was unconscious, the petitioner Surjitkumar had sexual

relationship with the victim without her consent and thereafter, with the help of

the petitioner in AB No.43 of 2022, the petitioner Surjitkumar taken the victim

to another unknown place, where she was forcibly raped by him without her

consent.

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 16

18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the

said fact was disclosed by the victim during the course of investigation and

that during the course of further investigation, statements of several

prosecution witnesses including the elder sister of the victim were recorded

who fully corroborated with the statement of the victim.

19. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner Wajid by using his own car assisted the petitioner Surjitkumar in the

abduction of the victim and also concealed the crime from the victim's family.

Similarly, the petitioners, Sonia and Kunjarani had also assisted the petitioner

Surjitkumarin the abduction of the victim and thus, all three i.e. the petitioners

in AB Nos.41 to 43 of 2022 helped the petitioner Surjitkumar to kidnap the

victim by playing a drama saying that the petitioner Surjitkumar and victim

already eloped. They had also administered some intoxicants while travelling

in the car to the victim and after drowsing of the victim, the petitioners Sonia

and Kunjarani held the victim side by side and took her till the bed in the

house of the petitioner Wajid. Thus, the involvement of all the petitioners for

the commission of the offences alleged against them are prime facie proved

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 17

and therefore, they cannot be granted anticipatory bail and their petitions for

anticipatory bail are liable to be dismissed.

20. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the

materials available on record.

21. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioner Surjitkumar fell

in love with the victim since 5 years ago and on 14.8.2022, the petitioner

Surjitkumar and the victim participated in a picnic programme at Andro and

after the picnic party, they decided to elope for love marriage and accordingly

they eloped on the same day and stayed the night at Mayang. On the

following day, they came back to the petitioner Surjitkumar'shouse and in the

morning some elder members in the family of the Surjitkumarvisited the

resident of victim for "Haidikpa Ceremony" and they also returned home

without having any objection from the victim's family. On 15.8.2022, the

victim was escorted by elder female members of the Surjitkumar to the

residence of victim in the evening. However, to the surprise and dismay, the

elder sister of the victim came out and started beating the victim and at that

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 18

time there was scuffle between the parties. While so, on 16.8.2022 with the

advice of the elder sister, the victim lodged a complaint against the petitioners

in AB Nos.40 to 43 of 2022. According to the petitioners, they have been

falsely implicated in the alleged commission of the crime.

22. On the other hand, the prosecution as well as the victim stated

contrary plea that the petitioner Surjitkumar by administering the intoxicants

with the help of the petitioners in AB Nos.41 to 43 kidnapped and had sexual

intercourse forcibly without the consent of the victim. Thus, they had

committed the offences punishable under Sections 366/376/417/120-B/34

IPC.

23. The petitioner Surjitkumar is the Founder and Managing Director of

SIMS and the victim is a student pursuing a course in the said Institution.

The materials produced and the statement of witnesses, including Section

161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim prima facie establishes that the petitioner

Surjitkumar conspired with his subordinate staff, namely the petitioners in AB

Nos.41 to 43, kidnapped the victim and without the consent of the victim the

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 19

petitioner Surjitkumarhad sexual intercourse forcibly. The prima facie material

also establishes that the petitioner Surjitkumarhad committed a heinous crime

against his own student and thus it is a blot on the student-teacher

relationship, which deserves no leniency.

24. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

that in order to unearth the truth in this case, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is very much required. This Court finds some force in the

submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor looking into the

crime committed by the petitioners against the victim.

25. Drawing this Court's attention to paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the first respondent police, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that several attempts had been made to cause arrest of

the petitioners at different locations, including Bishnupur, Kumbi, Samthel,

Hangul and Ngaikhong etc. by preparing house search to the areas where

they were suspected to be hiding, but they are evading from the police arrest

so far and that they have to be treated as proclaimed offenders. It is also the

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 20

submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in view of the

gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment in the event of

conviction, the petitions may be dismissed.

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case ofLavesh v. State, (2012) 8

SCC 730, held that normally, when an accused is declared a proclaimed

offender, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. In paragraph 12, the

Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the

present appellant was not available for interrogation and

investigation and was declared as "absconder". Normally,

when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a

"proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting

anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against

whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or

concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and

declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of

the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 21

27. It is to be mentioned that earlier, the petitioner Surjitkumar filed Cril.

Misc. (AB) Case No.226 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal

West and by the order dated 26.8.2022, the said application was dismissed.

Similarly, the petitioners Sonia, Kunjarani and Wajidhave filed Cril. Misc. (AB)

Case Nos.220 and 221 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal

West and by the order dated 31.8.2022, the learned Judge dismissed the said

petition also. While dismissing the petition, the learned Judge observed as

under:

"10. Considered the rival submissions and the materials on

record and the case diary. The involvement of the Sonia

Yambem, LaishramKunjarani and SK Wajid Shah in

conspiracy to abduct the victim to compel her to marry with

main accused Surjit is apparent. On the other hand, they did

not share much information. Accordingly, bail application is

rejected and the interim bail granted on 20.8.2022 is

vacated."

28. This Court finds no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned

Sessions Judge that the involvement of the petitioners in AB Nos.41 to 43 of

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 22

2022 in conspiracy to abduct the victim to compel to marry with the petitioner

Surjitkumar is not only apparent and the same has been prima facie

established the prosecution.

29. Anticipatory bail may be granted when there is material on record to

show that prosecution was inherently doubtful or where there is material on

record to show that there is a possibility of false implication. However, when

the element of criminality is involved and/or the custodial interrogation is

required and/or the other aspects and facts are required to be unfolded in

investigation, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

30. It is a well-settled law that while considering the question of grant of

anticipatory bail, the Court prima facie has also to look into the nature and

gravity of the alleged offence and the role of the accused. The Court is also

bound down and must look into, while exercising its power to grant bail, the

antecedents of the petitioner and also the possibility of the petitioner fleeing

from justice, apart from other factors and parameters in view of the facts of

each and every case.

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 23

31. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a person

seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to presumption of

innocence. In the case on hand, the petitionersareinnocentsand therefore,

they can be granted anticipatory bail.

32. It is also the submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitioners

that the petitioner Kunjarani has to take care of her minor son who is in need

of breastfeeding and as such in the event, she is arrested her son will suffer.

The learned counsel further submitted thatbreastfeeding is an integral part of

the reproductive process, the natural and ideal way of feeding the infant and

unique biological and emotional basis for child development.

33. It is true that breastfeeding is the best way to give babies all the

necessary nutrients and antibodies, which provide a vital shield of protection,

the experts in the field of neo-natal science are of considered opinion that the

interaction between the lactating mother and the suckling infant involves a

world of messages, which is essential for the intellectual and emotional

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 24

development of the child. The World Health Organisation recommends

exclusive breastfeeding until the baby attains the age of at least six months.

34. In the case on hand, though the petitioner Kunjarani stated that her

minor son who is in need of breastfeeding and if arrested her son will suffer,

first of all, the age of her son has not been given. In the absence of the age of

her son, based on mere averments, the Court cannot come to a conclusion

that there appears to be bona fide in her plea.

35. In the earlier paragraphs this Court held that prima facie the offence

is made out against the petitioners qua kidnap, rape and cheating with

conspiracy. Further, the prosecution has prima facie established the

involvement of the petitioners into the crime.

36. In so far as the grant or refuse of the anticipatory bail, the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of SiddharamSatlingappaMhetrevs State of

Maharashtra andothers, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the parameters as

under:

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 25

"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 26

the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 27

37. Further, in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC

379, the Hon'ble Apex Court further elucidated the principles for consideration

of anticipatory bail, which are as under:

"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a

serious offence are required to be satisfied and further

while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons

therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional

circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view

that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and

would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v.

P.T. Manokaran&Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of

Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S.Husain, (2008)

1 SCC 213, and Union of India v. PadamNarain Aggarwal,

(2008) 13 SCC 305)."

38. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the important

thing that the Court has to bear in mind is that what is lost by a rape victim is

face. The victim loses value as a person. Ours is a conservative society and,

therefore, a woman and more so a young woman will not put her reputation in

peril by alleging falsely about forcible sexual assault. A forcible sexual assault

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 28

brings in humiliation, feeling of disgust, tremendous embarrassment, sense of

shame, trauma and lifelong emotional scar to a victim and it is, therefore,

most unlikely of a woman, and more so by a young woman, roping in

somebody falsely in the crime of rape. The stigma that attaches to the victim

of rape in Indian society ordinarily rules out the levelling of false accusations.

An Indian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring

charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge.

39. Taking into consideration the nature and the gravity of the offence,

severity of punishment and to unearth the conspiracy and the alleged roles of

the petitioners in the commission of the offences, the possibility to repeat

similar or other offences, particularly the petitioner Surjitkumar and impact on

the public in case the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners as well as

the fact that the petitioners have been evaded from the arrest of the

respondent police, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not

entitled to anticipatory bail. This Court does not find anything on the record to

satisfy itself, at this stage, that there are grounds or more to say reasonable

grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Thus, this Court does

not find any merit in the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners.

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022 P a g e | 29

40. In the result, the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed.

41. The interim bail orders already granted by this Court on 31.08.2022

in AB No.40 of 2022, 02.09.2022 in AB Nos.41 & 42 of 2022 and 06.09.2022

in AB No.43 of 2022 are vacated.

42. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited

to the question of considering the anticipatory bail to the petitioners and this

Court has not delved into the merits of the offences levelled against the

petitioners.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

-Larson

AB Nos.40, 41, 42 & 43 of 2022