Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Assault Case: Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 July 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 608

Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail to a police officer accused of sexual assault, especially when the investigation is ongoing and the accused is not cooperating? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of *Sadhna Chaudhary vs. The State of Rajasthan*, ultimately setting aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail. This case highlights the importance of considering the seriousness of allegations and the conduct of the accused during investigations, particularly when the accused is a person of authority.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The appellant, Sadhna Chaudhary, filed a complaint against respondent no. 2, a police officer named Kanwar Pal Singh. The case began in 2018 when the appellant’s sister filed a complaint at the Mahila Thana, Jhunjhunu, where respondent no. 2 was the Station House Officer (SHO). The respondent no. 2 kept important documents belonging to the appellant’s sister, including her bank passbook and marriage certificate, and asked the appellant to collect them later.

On September 25, 2018, the appellant went to Jhunjhunu to collect the documents. She was directed to respondent no. 2’s official residence. There, she was allegedly given buttermilk laced with drugs, causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, she realized she had been sexually assaulted by respondent no. 2. He then allegedly threatened her with obscene videos and photographs he had taken of her, coercing her into continued exploitation for almost two years.

In May 2020, respondent no. 2 allegedly forced the appellant into his vehicle, assaulted her, and took her to an unknown location. Later, his wife and children arrived and also assaulted her, causing her to lose consciousness again. She was rescued by a police patrol and subsequently filed FIR No. 161 of 2020 on June 1, 2020, at the Karni Vihar Police Station, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 376, 323, 341, 354, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Initially, the FIR only covered the May 2020 incident, but later, the appellant provided a detailed account of the prior incidents in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The appellant further alleged that respondent no. 2 misused his position to file a false report against her through his wife on June 5, 2020, registered as FIR No. 0234 of 2020. This FIR was later found to be false, and a closure report was submitted. The appellant contended that respondent no. 2 was not cooperating with the investigation of her FIR because he was not in custody, and the recovery of crucial evidence, including obscene videos and photographs, was pending.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The relevant sections are:

• Section 376, IPC: Deals with the punishment for rape.
• Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 341, IPC: Deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.
• Section 354, IPC: Deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 379, IPC: Deals with punishment for theft.
• Section 438, CrPC: Provides for the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 164, CrPC: Deals with the recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 173, CrPC: Deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.

The core issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 438 of the CrPC, which allows a person to seek anticipatory bail when they have a reasonable apprehension of being arrested for a non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in previous judgments regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was flawed as it accepted the respondent’s version of events without considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence against him.
• It was contended that the respondent no. 2, being a police officer, misused his position to exploit her, and his continued freedom would hinder the investigation.
• The appellant emphasized that crucial evidence, including obscene videos and photographs, needed to be recovered from the respondent, which was not possible without his custodial interrogation.
• The State, in its counter-affidavit, supported the appellant’s claims, stating that the investigation had revealed substantial evidence against the respondent.
• The appellant also highlighted that the respondent had filed false complaints against her and her family to pressure her into withdrawing the FIR.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent no. 2 argued that the appellant was exploiting him and his family.
• He contended that the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was based on legally admissible facts and circumstances.
• The respondent claimed that the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion and that the Supreme Court should not interfere with it.
• He also submitted that other FIRs registered against the appellant and her relatives were by third parties who were victims of extortion by the appellant and her relatives, and had nothing to do with him.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, and the respondent’s lack of cooperation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 565: This Constitution Bench judgment laid down the considerations for granting anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court referred to this case for the principles governing anticipatory bail.
• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2011] 1 SCC 694: This case reiterated the factors to be considered while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, relying on the *Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia* case.
• Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020] 5 SCC 1: This recent Constitution Bench judgment laid down guiding principles for dealing with applications under Section 438 CrPC. The Supreme Court referred to this case for the updated guiding principles on anticipatory bail.
• State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125: This case was referred in the context of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in relation to discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the conditions to be imposed while granting bail.
• Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to direct arrest of a person released on bail.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in *Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [1980] 2 SCC 565*, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in cases involving serious offences.
• The Supreme Court also relied on *Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [2011] 1 SCC 694*, which reiterated the factors to be considered while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail.
• The Supreme Court followed the guiding principles laid down in *Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020] 5 SCC 1*, which provided updated guidance on dealing with anticipatory bail applications.
• The Supreme Court referred to *State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125* in the context of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, regarding the admissibility of information provided by an accused person.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the seriousness of the allegations against the respondent, who was a police officer. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s position of authority made his actions even more egregious. The Court also focused on the fact that the respondent had not cooperated with the investigation and that crucial evidence needed to be recovered from him. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had accepted the respondent’s version of events without adequately considering the evidence against him. The court also took into consideration the fact that the State itself had supported the appellant’s case, and had stated that the investigation had unearthed substantial evidence against the respondent.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail, stating, “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.” The Supreme Court also noted that the respondent, being a police officer, should have a higher standard of adherence to the law, stating, “The Respondent no.2 is not a common man, being a law-abiding person. His adherence to law has to be more stringent than expected in general by a common man, which apparently, he failed to observe.” The Court also highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to recover crucial evidence, stating, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in cases involving serious offences like sexual assault.
• The conduct of the accused during the investigation, particularly their cooperation, is a crucial factor in determining whether to grant anticipatory bail.
• When the accused is a person of authority, such as a police officer, their adherence to the law should be more stringent.
• Courts should not accept the accused’s version of events without a thorough examination of the evidence and the seriousness of the allegations.
• Custodial interrogation may be necessary to recover crucial evidence, especially in cases where the accused is not cooperating with the investigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2 was set aside.
• The application for anticipatory bail filed by the respondent no. 2 was dismissed.
• The respondent no. 2 was granted two weeks to surrender.
• If the respondent no. 2 failed to surrender within two weeks, the Investigating Agency was at liberty to arrest him and proceed with the investigation.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in cases involving serious offences like sexual assault, and where the accused is not cooperating with the investigation. The Supreme Court reiterated that the conduct of the accused, particularly their cooperation with the investigation, is a crucial factor in deciding on anticipatory bail. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases, such as *Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia* and *Sushila Aggarwal*, and clarifies that High Courts should not grant anticipatory bail without a thorough examination of the evidence and the seriousness of the allegations. This case reinforces the importance of custodial interrogation in cases where crucial evidence needs to be recovered and the accused is not cooperating.

Conclusion

In *Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan*, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to a police officer accused of sexual assault. The Supreme Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the respondent’s lack of cooperation with the investigation, and the need to recover crucial evidence. This judgment underscores that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, particularly in cases involving serious offenses and where the accused is not cooperating. The judgment also reinforces the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence and the conduct of the accused before granting anticipatory bail.