Case title:
Md. Asfak Alam vs. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.
Date of Order:
July 31, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Parties:
Appellant(S)- Md. Asfak Alam
Respondent(S)- The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
SUBJECT
- The court listened to the representatives of both parties in the Special Leave Petition. However, considering the unique aspects of the challenged order, the court decided to postpone the final decision and scheduled it for today.
- Special leave has been granted in this case. The appellant is unhappy about being denied anticipatory bail and has been directed to surrender before the court and apply for regular bail.
- Supreme court mechanically rejected the bail and directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach casual and in error.
- As a result, the impugned order rejecting bail and directing the appellant to surrender and later seek bail cannot stand and is hereby set aside by the Supreme Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 498A, 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and
Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
OVERVIEW
- The relevant facts are that the appellant and the second respondent, referred to as "husband and wife," got married on 5.11.2020. According to the appellant, the respondent-wife was not happy, and her father used to interfere and put pressure on him and his family. This resulted in complaints being filed against the wife's family for threatening the appellant's family.
- The appellant alleges that on 02.04.2022, the concerned Police Station registered a First Information Report (FIR) against him, his brother, and others, accusing them of committing offenses under Section 498A, 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, without complying with the directions of the Five Judge Bench in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713.
- The appellant feared being arrested and thus filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Sessions Judge in Gumla, Jharkhand. Unfortunately, the application was rejected on 28.06.2022.
- Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Jharkhand High Court for anticipatory bail on 05.07.2022. Throughout this period, the appellant fully cooperated with the investigation, and after its conclusion, a charge-sheet was submitted to the Sessions Judge.
- In the mentioned order, the Sessions Court observed that on 08.08.2022, the High Court had granted interim protection to the appellant, instructing that he should not be arrested. However, when the High Court heard the application again on 18.01.2023, without addressing the pending anticipatory bail, it was rejected, and instead, the High Court ordered the
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the high court order stands justified of rejecting bail
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant argues that the Constitution gives great importance to personal liberty. They assert that the necessity for arrest before filing a charge sheet arises only when the accused's custodial investigation or interrogation is essential or in cases involving serious offenses where the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out.
- The learned counsel emphasizes that although the power to arrest exists, it does not mean it should be exercised in every case. They stress the need to distinguish between the mere existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercising it.
- Therefore, it is contended that the procedural requirements of Section 41A of the CrPC must always be adhered to in this matter.
The learned counsel based their arguments on the rulings of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. These cases were cited to emphasize their submissions. The counsel also pointed out that according to these rulings, an accused should be taken into custody only if the Investigating Officer genuinely believes that there is a risk of the accused absconding or disobeying summons.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The counsel representing the State argued that the mere filing of a charge sheet does not automatically grant the right to anticipatory bail to the accused, as it is always subject to the court's discretion.
- The court carefully considers whether the accused, based on their past conduct, might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The counsel emphasized that the respondent, who is also the complainant in this case, had alleged ongoing harassment by the appellant and his relatives at their matrimonial home merely one and a half months after their marriage.
- The respondent further claimed to have received threats on her life, including the threat of being injected in a way that would make it appear as if she died of a heart attack.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court of India has stressed the significance of personal liberty when exercising discretion in granting bail. In a series of rulings, it has established that bail should generally be granted, but in serious cases specified in the provisions of the CrPC (Section 437) involving offenses with severe penalties or special offenses, the court must exercise caution and careful consideration in granting bail.
- The key factors taken into account when considering bail or anticipatory bail are the nature and seriousness of the offense, the accused's potential to influence evidence or interfere with the trial by threatening or influencing witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused absconding to avoid justice, among other relevant factors.
- Throughout the trial, the court maintains control over the proceedings and has the authority to impose any necessary conditions to ensure the accused's presence and participation in the trial. In all cases, the court must adhere to these fundamental principles as guiding principles.
- In the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), a five-judge Bench of the court reviewed past decisions, including the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, to determine whether imposing conditions on pre-arrest bail orders, especially after the filing of a charge-sheet, is justified.
- The court held that based on the observations of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, the court may, if there are reasons to do so, limit the operation of the pre-arrest bail order to a short period after the filing of an FIR, and the applicant may be directed to obtain bail under Sections 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonable short period after the filing of the FIR.
- However, the court emphasized that this should not be an invariable rule, and the normal practice should be not to limit the pre-arrest bail order in relation to a specific period of time. The imposition of conditions can be considered by the court when granting pre-arrest bail, but it should be done based on the circumstances of each case, such as the stage at which the anticipatory bail application is moved—whether before the FIR is filed, during the investigation process, or after the charge-sheet is filed.
- In the current case, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no extraordinary features or circumstances that would disentitle the appellant from being granted anticipatory bail. The critical factor is not the early souring of the matrimonial relationship but whether the allegations against the appellant are true or partly true, which remains uncertain at this stage and subject to conjecture.
- During the pendency of the anticipatory bail application, two distinct periods can be identified. Firstly, from April 2022 to 08.08.2022, when there was no protection granted through any interim order. Secondly, on 08.08.2022, the High Court granted an order directing the police not to arrest the appellant during the pendency of his application under Section 438 of the CrPC.
- After 08.08.2022, the investigation was completed, and the chargesheet was filed, followed by cognizance taken on 01.10.2022 by the Sessions Judge. The appellant cooperated with the investigation throughout both periods, with and without protection.
- Considering the nature of the offenses, the allegations, and the maximum sentence they may carry, the court should have granted bail as a matter of course once the chargesheet was filed and no impediment existed on the part of the accused.
- However, the court mechanically rejected the bail and directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach casual and in error.
- As a result, the impugned order rejecting bail and directing the appellant to surrender and later seek bail cannot stand and is hereby set aside by the Supreme Court.
CONCLUSION
The decisions referred to by the counsel serve as valuable and helpful references concerning the authority of the police, the court's discretion, and its responsibilities in various types of cases, including those involving matrimonial offenses like Section 498A of the IPC, along with other cases
