- • Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh Gupta, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by a man facing a case for cheating and forgery for allegedly concealing his employment status and sexuality from his wife, Judge Rajesh Gupta stated that, in addition to financial losses, the future of a young girl had been negatively affected due to the material suppression.
- • In the present case, the married couple had started living separately just after three months of their marriage. This was because the accused had refused to consummate the wedding on the pretext of some disease. Furthermore, it was contended by the wife that disclosed that the accused was interested in homosexuality and was gay as she had discovered some WhatsApp conversations in which the accused had discussed their sexual life and was indulged in telephonic sex with his male partners. Moreover, it was claimed by the wife that to woo her, the accused had shown her a fake job offer letter of Rs.14 lakhs salary p.a. Therefore, the accused was charged under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, while challenging the claims, the accused sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.
- • Section 420 of the IPC talks about cheating by dishonesty, inducing a deceived person to do something.
- • Section 465 of the IPC provides the punishment for committing forgery.
- • Section 467 of the IPC talks about forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
- • Section 468 of the IPC states that if a person commits forgery with the intent of cheating, they shall be penalized.
- • Section 506 of the IPC states the punishment for criminal intimidation.
- • Section 438 of CrPC states that if a person believes that he has been arrested for a non-bailable offense, he may apply to the court of sessions or HC for anticipatory bail.
- • It was held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. vs State Of Punjab (1980) that the provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC should not be presumed of containing something sensitive that requires great care and diligence and that anticipatory bail is a prerequisite for achieving an individual's liberty; it is neither a ticket to committing crimes nor a defence against any type of allegations.
- • After hearing both the parties, the Hon'ble Court held that even though the right to live with dignity is a fundamental right of every individual, no person should be given the freedom to tamper with another person's life. Furthermore, every individual has the right to live their life in the way they desire; however, their lifestyle should not cause damage to another person. In this case, the complainant had faced irreparable damage due to the accused lies, and no monetary compensation could compensate for the damages faced by her.
- • Additionally, while referring to the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc Vs. State Of Punjab (1980), the Hon'ble Court, further held that the anticipatory bail was to be seen as a means to guarantee an individual's liberty and not as a bridge to perform the execution of crimes or as a shield against any type of allegation.
- • Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Hon'ble Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
