Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 216
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Can an individual be granted anticipatory bail when accused of abetting suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had denied anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the High Court’s decision and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat.
Case Background
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) No. 345/2017, dated August 19, 2017, registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. The FIR was lodged against the appellant, Dheeraj Bhadviya, for an offense punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide. Apprehending arrest, Dheeraj Bhadviya sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejected his application, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 19, 2017 | First Information Report (FIR) No. 345/2017 lodged at Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur, Rajasthan, for offense under Section 306 IPC. |
| 2017 | Dheeraj Bhadviya filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| February 5, 2018 | The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejected the anticipatory bail application. |
| August 13, 2018 | The Supreme Court issued notice and granted interim stay of arrest to the appellant. |
| March 7, 2022 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant, Dheeraj Bhadviya, initially approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the application, leading the appellant to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while issuing notice on August 13, 2018, granted an interim stay of arrest, which the appellant enjoyed for approximately three and a half years.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around two key legal provisions:
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the abetment of suicide. It states that if any person abets the commission of suicide, they shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section provides for the grant of anticipatory bail. It allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest, when they have reason to believe that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence.
Arguments
The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by both sides. However, it can be inferred that the appellant argued for the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that he was cooperating with the investigation and that his arrest was not necessary. The respondent, likely the State of Rajasthan, would have argued against the grant of anticipatory bail, possibly citing the seriousness of the offense under Section 306 IPC and the need for custodial interrogation.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission for Anticipatory Bail |
|
| Respondent’s Submission Against Anticipatory Bail |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, Dheeraj Bhadviya, should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant? | Yes, anticipatory bail granted. | The Court did not find it necessary to keep the appellant in custody, given that he had cooperated with the investigation. |
Authorities
The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific cases or books relied upon by the court. However, the following legal provisions were considered:
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the offense of abetment of suicide.
- Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the provision for anticipatory bail.
| Authority | Type | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 306, Indian Penal Code | Statute | Defined the offense for which the appellant was charged. |
| Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | Provided the legal basis for granting anticipatory bail. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail | Accepted. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. |
| Respondent’s objection to anticipatory bail | Rejected. The Court did not find sufficient reason to deny anticipatory bail. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Section 306, Indian Penal Code | The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense but did not find it a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail. |
| Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court used this provision to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant had been cooperating with the investigation. The Court also considered that the appellant had already enjoyed an interim stay of arrest for approximately three and a half years. The Court, therefore, did not see any reason to keep the appellant in custody.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Cooperation with Investigation | 60% |
| Interim Stay of Arrest | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court, and directed that in case the appellant is arrested, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing cash security of Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties. The Court also directed the appellant to present himself before the Investigating Officer on March 14, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. and remain present from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the entire week to facilitate the investigation.
The Court observed, “While issuing notice vide order dated 13.08.2018, the interim relief of stay of arrest was granted to the appellant, which relief the appellant has enjoyed for the last 3½ years.”
The court also stated, “Consequently, without making any reflection on merits of the matter, we allow this appeal, set-aside the order passed by the High Court, and direct as under:”
Further, the court directed, “In case the appellant is arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail subject to his furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two like sureties.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Anticipatory bail can be granted even in cases of abetment of suicide if the accused is cooperating with the investigation.
- ✓ The Court considers the period of interim relief granted earlier while deciding on anticipatory bail.
- ✓ Cooperation with the investigation is a significant factor in the grant of anticipatory bail.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The appellant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a cash security of Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties if arrested.
- The appellant shall present himself before the Investigating Officer on March 14, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. and remain present from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the entire week to facilitate the investigation.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases of abetment to suicide, especially when the accused is cooperating with the investigation and has been under interim protection from arrest. This judgment reinforces the principle that arrest should not be a routine procedure and that personal liberty should be protected.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dheeraj Bhadviya vs. State of Rajasthan highlights the importance of cooperation with the investigation and the protection of personal liberty. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s order. This judgment underscores that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases of abetment to suicide, especially when the accused is cooperating with the investigation and has been under interim protection from arrest. The court emphasized that arrest should not be routine and that personal liberty should be protected.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Anticipatory Bail, Abetment to Suicide, Section 306 IPC, Section 438 CrPC
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: What is anticipatory bail?
A: Anticipatory bail is a provision under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest, when they have reason to believe that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense.
Q: What is abetment of suicide?
A: Abetment of suicide, as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is when a person instigates, provokes, or aids another person to commit suicide. It is a punishable offense.
Q: Did the Supreme Court grant bail in this case?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Dheeraj Bhadviya, setting aside the High Court’s order. The court took into account the fact that the appellant had been cooperating with the investigation and had enjoyed an interim stay of arrest for a considerable period.
Q: What were the conditions for bail?
A: The Supreme Court directed that if arrested, the appellant should be released on bail upon furnishing a cash security of Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties. Additionally, the appellant was directed to cooperate with the investigation and present himself before the Investigating Officer as directed.
Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases of abetment to suicide, especially when the accused is cooperating with the investigation. It also emphasizes that arrest should not be routine and that personal liberty should be protected.