SADHNA CHAUDHARY vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 936 of 2022 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8477 of 2021) SADHNA CHAUDHARY                     APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN  & ANR.        RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Vikram Nath, J. Leave granted. 2. The   appellant   is   the   complainant/victim/ prosecutrix.   She has filed this appeal assailing the correctness   of   the   judgment   and   order   dated 25.08.2021   passed   by   the   Rajasthan   High   Court, Bench   at   Jaipur   in   S.B.   Criminal   Misc.   Bail Application No.6394 of 2021 (Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), whereby the High Court allowed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2022.07.14 11:52:19 IST Reason: 1 the application for the relief of anticipatory bail under Section   438   CrPC   in   FIR   No.161   of   2020,   Police Station­Karni Vihar, Jaipur, under Sections 323, 341, 354, 379 and 376 IPC. 3. As the present case relates to an order granting anticipatory bail, we are consciously referring to the facts and the arguments in brief so that none of the parties are prejudiced or the  Trial Court would be influenced by any of the observations, which may be made by us in this order. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that, sometimes in 2018, when the respondent no.2 was posted as a Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Jhunjhunu, the sister of the appellant had made a complaint against her   in­laws   at   the   same   police   station.   The respondent   no.2   had   kept   with   himself,   the   Bank Pass­book, Marriage Registration Certificate, Marriage Photographs,   Aadhar   Card   and   Birth   Certificate relating to her sister and had told her to collect the 2 same later. On 25.09.2018, when the appellant was called to collect the papers from the respondent no.2, and upon her reaching Jhunjhunu, she was informed that   papers   may   be   collected   from   his   official residence, where she had to compulsorily go as she had   to   return   to   Jaipur   on   the   same   day.   At   the residence, the respondent no.2 offered buttermilk to the appellant, which she claims to have innocently consumed, but apparently the same was laced with drugs   resulting   into   the   appellant   losing   her consciousness.   When   she   regained   consciousness, she found herself in a very awkward situation and immediately realized that she had been exploited by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is said to have  threatened her  that he has made videos  and clicked   photographs   in   obscene   and   objectionable conditions on his mobile and if she did not continue to accede to his demands and commands, he would make everything public.  3 5. The exploitation of the appellant is said to have continued   for   almost   two   years.   In   May,   2020, respondent no.2 came to her residence, where she resides with her husband and children. He forcefully took   her   in   his   Jeep   to   some   unknown   place, physically assaulted her, snatched away her mobile, then after driving to various places at some point his wife and children arrived and they also assaulted her, as a result of which, she became unconscious. She was   saved   by   the   patrolling   vehicle   of   the   Police department, whereafter she lodged the FIR No.161 of 2020   on   01.06.2020   for   the   offences   punishable under Sections 376, 323, 341, 354 and 379 IPC at the Karni Vihar Police Station, Jaipur. The FIR was only   about   that   day’s   incident,   however,   later   on, when the appellant recovered, she narrated the whole story in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. 6. Further,   the   case   of   the   appellant   is   that respondent no.2 misusing his official position got a false report registered through his wife against the 4 appellant five days later on 05.06.2020, which was registered   as   FIR   No.0234   of   2020,   Police   Station­ Jhotwara, Jaipur. It is also submitted that the said FIR   after   investigation   has   been   found   to   be containing completely false and incorrect facts and a closure report has already been submitted. However, insofar   as   the   FIR   lodged   by   the   appellant   is concerned,   as   the   respondent   no.2   has   not   been taken into custody, he is not co­operating with the investigation and several articles and mobiles need to be   recovered   from   him   for   a   fair   and   proper investigation.  It is also necessary to have control over the obscene videos and photographs of the appellant, as such his judicial custody is required considering the seriousness of the allegations.  7. The order of anticipatory bail, which has been passed   in   a   cursory   manner   literally   treating   the averments contained in the petition before the High Court to be correct needs to be set aside. It is also the case of the appellant that respondent no.2 has further 5 misused his official position in order to lodge several false complaints not only against the appellant but her family members also only in order to pressurize her to withdraw the present FIR. 8. The   State­respondent   has   filed   a   detailed counter­affidavit.  Relevant paragraph nos.5 to 10 are relevant which read as follows: “5   It   is   most   respectfully   submitted   that   the . investigation   in   the   FIR   161/2020   has unearthed   substantial   evidence   which   proves that Accused/Respondent No. 2, who is himself a   police   officer,   is   guilty   of   offences   under Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 379, 376 of IPC, as   detailed   in   the   Factual   Report   dated 23.11.2021. 6.     Further,   on   05.06.2020,   another   FIR   No. 234/2020 was registered at the instance of one Smt Usha Kanwar, i.e, wife of Respondents No. 2, at the Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur West, under   Sections   143,323,341,   384,   504,   379, 452, of the IPC. After detailed investigation, it was found that the said FIR was registered on the basis of false information and no offence was made out against the Petitioner and any members of her family. As such, Final Report under Section 173 CrPC already been filed on 27.09.2021 before the court of learned a CJM Class­   3   Jaipur   City,   wherein   next   date   of hearing is fixed as 25.01.2022. A   true   translate   copy   of   the   Factual   Report dated 25.11.2021 detailing the findings of the 6 investigation and its status is annexed herewith and marked as  Annexure­R2 (Page No. 45 to 99). 7.   In   addition   to   the   facts   stated   in   the   two Factual Reports above, it  is  most respectfully submitted that the Accused/Respondent No. 2 is a police officer who is well versed with the process   of   law   and   an   insider   to   law enforcement   machinery   in   the   State   of Rajasthan, therefore, it is even more important that   the   investigation   proceed   without   the Accused/Respondent   No.   2   being   under   the protection of the Hon’ble Court. 8.   Further,   the   fact   unearthed   in   the investigation till now detailed in the above two Factual   Reports   corroborate   and   prove   the allegations made by the Petitioner. In addition, the  FR in FIR 234/2020 details  how  a false case   was   sought   to   be   created   against   the Petitioner and her family. 9. It is most respectfully submitted that on the strength of facts laid out above, the answering Respondent   seeks   cancellation   of   the anticipatory   bail   granted   on Accused/Respondent No. 2. In particular, it is imperative that all efforts be  made to find the obscene photographs, videos, mobile phone and clothes  bag of  the  victim in addition to  other pieces of evidence that the Accused/Respondent No.2 alone will have knowledge of. It may be noted that the Accused/Respondent No. 2 has not fully cooperated with the investigation as noted in the Factual Report dated 23.11.2021. 10. In light of the above submissions, it is most respectfully   prayed   before   this   Hon’ble   Court that impugned order granting anticipatory bail Respondent   No.   2   be   set   aside   and   the 7 Respondent­State be at liberty to proceed with the   investigation   as   it   sees   fit,   without   the accused being under any protection from this Hon’ble Court.” 9. In the aforesaid counter affidavit, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (West), Jaipur duly authorized by the State of Rajasthan, who filed the   affidavit,   has   stated   in   paragraph   5   that substantial   evidence   has   been   unearthed   which proves   that   the   respondent   no.2,   who   is   a   police officer, is guilty of the offences, details whereof are mentioned in the report dated 23.11.2021. 10. In   paragraph   6,   it   has   been   stated   that respondent no.2 managed to get a false report lodged against   the   appellant   registered   as   FIR   No.234   of 2020, which after detailed investigation was found to be   based   on   false   information   and   no   offence   was made   out   against   the   appellant   or   her   family members. The final report under Section 173(2) CrPC has already been submitted on 27.09.2021. 8 11. In   paragraph   7,   it   is   stated   that   the   police officer, who is well­versed in the process of law and a part of the law enforcement machinery, it is all the more important that the investigation must proceed without   the   respondent   no.2   being   under   the protection of this Court. 12. In   paragraph   9,   it   is   stated   that   order   for granting   anticipatory   bail   needs   to   be   cancelled   in particular for the reason that efforts are still on to recover   the   obscene   photographs,   videos,   mobile­ phone and the bag of clothes of the victim in addition to other pieces of evidence from the respondent no.2, who alone would be having knowledge of the same. It is also specifically stated in paragraph 9 that he has not   fully   cooperated   with   the   investigation   as   is apparent from the factual report dated 23.11.2021. 13. On the other hand, respondent no.2 has sought to   justify   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court. According   to   the   learned   counsel,   the   appellant   is exploiting   the   respondent   no.2   and   his   family 9 members, the reasons given by the High Court while passing   the   order   of   anticipatory   bail   is   based   on legally admissible facts and the circumstances placed before the High Court. He also submitted that once the High Court has exercised its discretion, this Court may not interfere with the same.  It is also submitted that other FIR’s registered against the appellant and her relatives is by third persons/strangers who are victims of extortion by the appellant and her relatives. They have nothing to do with the respondent no.2. 14.  Law on the applicability or grant of anticipatory bail   under   section   438   Cr.P.C.   may   be   briefly summarised as under: ­ 14.1. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. 1 State of Punjab ,   a Constitution Bench of this Court,   Chief   Justice   Y.V.   Chandrachud, speaking for the Court dealt with in detail on the considerations for grant of anticipatory bail.  1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 10 14.2.  In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of 2 this   Court   relying Maharashtra   and   Others ;   upon the Constitution Bench judgment in   Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia   laid down in paragraph 112   of   the   report   the   following   factors   and parameters to be considered while dealing with an application for 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 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 the case.   The   cases   in   which   the   accused   is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of   the   Penal   Code,   1860   the   court   should consider   with   even   greater   care   and   caution 2 (2011) 1 SCC 694 11 because over­implication 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 witnesses 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.” 14.3.   In   yet   another   recent   Constitution   Bench judgment in the case of   Sushila Aggarwal and 3 Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another , in paragraph 85 of the report  Justice Ravindra Bhatt  laid down the guiding principles in dealing with applications under Section 438.  Justice M.R. Shah  had authored a separate opinion.   Justice   Arun   Misra,   Justice   Indira Banerjee and Justice Vineet Saran  agreed with both   the   opinions.   The   concluding   guiding 3 (2020) 5 SCC 1 12 factors stated in paragraphs 92, 92.1 to 92.9 are reproduced hereunder:  “92. This Court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438 CrPC.

4 (1980) 2 SCC 565 13

92.3.   Nothing   in   Section   438   Cr.   PC, compels   or   obliges   courts   to   impose conditions   limiting   relief   in   terms   of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of   statement   of   any   witness,   by   the police,   during   investigation   or   inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing  the  course  of  investigation, or   tampering   with   evidence   (including intimidating   witnesses),   likelihood   of fleeing   justice   (such   as   leaving   the country),   etc.   The   courts   would   be justified   –   and   ought   to   impose conditions   spelt   out   in Section   437 (3), Cr.P.C. [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The need   to   impose   other   restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case­by­case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency. Such special or other   restrictive   conditions   may   be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should   not   be   imposed   in   a   routine manner,   in   all   cases.   Likewise, conditions   which   limit   the   grant   of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.

14

15

15. Having considered the submissions, the material on record, in particular the stand taken by the State­ respondent no.1 in their counter affidavit, and the law on the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, we are of the   view   that   considering   the   seriousness   of   the offences alleged, this was not a fit case for grant of 5 AIR 1960 SC 1125 16 anticipatory   bail,   when   according   to   the   State, recoveries are yet to be made and the respondent no.2 has not extended full cooperation in the investigation. 16. The   Respondent   no.2   is   not   a   common   man, being a law­abiding person. His adherence to law has to be more stringent than expected in general by a common man, which apparently, he failed to observe.  17. We also feel that High Court has proceeded to accept the case as set up by the respondent no.2 in his petition to be true and on that basis proceeded to grant anticipatory bail. The High Court in our opinion committed an error. 18. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be  allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated   25.08.2021   is   set   aside   and   the   application under Section 438 CrPC filed by the respondent no.2 is dismissed. 17 19. We grant two weeks’ time to the respondent no.2 to surrender, failing which, the Investigating Agency would   be   at   liberty   to   arrest   him   forthwith   and proceed   with   the   investigation   in   a   fair   and reasonable manner as per law. 20. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the appeal.   If regular bail application is filed,   it   may   be   considered   on   its   own   merits   in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made above. 21. The appeal stands allowed as above. …………..........................J. [AJAY RASTOGI] ………….........................J. [VIKRAM NATH] NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2022.  18