Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail in blackmail case: Sabita Paul vs. State of West Bengal (2024) INSC 245 (22 March 2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a secondary accused when the primary accused has already been granted bail, and the secondary accused’s actions are inextricably linked to those of the primary accused.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Sabita Paul vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

[Judgment Date]: 22 March 2024

Date of the Judgment: 22 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 245
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a person accused of blackmail and extortion be granted anticipatory bail when the main accused has already been granted bail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a mother was accused of conspiring with her son to blackmail a neighbor. The court considered whether the mother’s role was sufficiently independent to warrant denial of bail, ultimately deciding to grant her anticipatory bail. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justice Sanjay Karol authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed by Smt. “X” against Supratim Paul and his mother, Sabita Paul. The complainant alleged that Supratim Paul, her neighbor, had taken obscene photographs of her without her consent. These photographs were then used to blackmail and extort money from her. Supratim Paul allegedly shared these photographs with his mother, Sabita Paul, who also participated in the blackmail attempts.

Supratim Paul, the primary accused, was granted anticipatory bail. Sabita Paul, the appellant, initially had her anticipatory bail applications rejected by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. However, she was later granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. This grant of bail was subsequently cancelled by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Sabita Paul initially applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court and subsequently by the High Court. After the charge sheet was filed, she applied again before the High Court and was granted anticipatory bail. However, this grant of bail was cancelled by the High Court on the grounds that Sabita Paul had suppressed the fact that her previous applications for anticipatory bail had been rejected. This cancellation order led Sabita Paul to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted interim protection to Sabita Paul, subject to her cooperation with the investigation and trial.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the 41st Report of the Law Commission, which recommended the inclusion of anticipatory bail provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also cited the case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors [(2021) 15 SCC 777], which laid down the factors to be considered while granting anticipatory bail. These factors include:

• The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused.
• The antecedents of the applicant.
• The possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice.
• The likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offenses.
• Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them.
• The impact of the grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases of large magnitude.
• The courts must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused.
• A balance has to be struck between no prejudice to the investigation and prevention of harassment of the accused.
• The reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threat to the complainant.
• Frivolity in prosecution should be considered.

The Court also considered Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which the complainant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court also noted that the appellant has been charged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Arguments

The following are the arguments presented by both sides:

• Appellant’s Submissions:
  • The appellant argued that her role in the alleged crime was secondary to that of her son, Supratim Paul, who had already been granted anticipatory bail.
  • The appellant contended that she had fully cooperated with the investigation and had not impeded the cause of justice.
  • The appellant submitted that the High Court erred in cancelling her anticipatory bail based on the suppression of material facts, as the earlier rejection of her bail applications was already part of the record.
• Respondent’s Submissions:
  • The respondent argued that the appellant’s anticipatory bail should be cancelled because she had suppressed material facts about her previous bail rejections.
  • The respondent contended that the appellant was involved in the crime and should not be granted anticipatory bail.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant on the ground that she had suppressed material facts of dismissal of her previous attempts to secure anticipatory bail.
2. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the secondary accused if the primary accused has already been granted bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines criminal conspiracy.
• Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000: This section deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.

Judgment

The Supreme Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors [(2021) 15 SCC 777]*: The court applied the factors laid down in this case for granting anticipatory bail.
• Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486]*: The court applied the principle of parity by focusing on the role of the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the main accused, Supratim Paul, had already been granted anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that the appellant’s role was secondary and inextricably linked to the actions of her son. The court also took into account that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and had not attempted to evade justice. The court found that the High Court’s cancellation of bail based on the suppression of facts was not justified, as the previous rejection of bail was already on record.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The court considered the principle of parity, noting that the primary accused had already been granted bail. The court also emphasized that the appellant’s actions were not independent but were linked to the actions of her son. The court did not find any evidence that the appellant had acted to aggravate the situation independently. The court stated that,
“While applying this principle of parity, the Court is required, as was recently observed in Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, the Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.”

The court also observed that, “It is alleged that he had secured pictures of the complainant, that were compromising in nature, which then the instant appellant used to extort and to blackmail the complainant.”

The Court further stated that,
“In the facts, the prime accused who is alleged to have initially conducted the blackmail, who m the complainant is said to have paid ‘hush-money’, has been granted bail and the role played by the instant appellant was only to further the alleged acts of her son. She has not acted independently, to further aggravate the situation.”

The court also held that, “Grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right. The same is well-established.”

Key Takeaways

• Anticipatory bail can be granted to a secondary accused if the primary accused has already been granted bail, especially when the secondary accused’s actions are inextricably linked to those of the primary accused.
• The principle of parity is an important consideration when deciding on bail applications, but the court must focus on the role of the accused whose application is under consideration.
• Suppression of facts must be material and not already on the record for cancellation of bail.
• Cooperation with the investigation is a relevant factor when considering anticipatory bail.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant must continue to cooperate with the investigation and trial, as per the conditions of the interim protection order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when considering anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving multiple accused, the court must consider the principle of parity and the role of each accused. The court clarified that while parity is not a right, it is an important factor to consider. This case also reiterates that the court should focus on the specific role of the accused when applying the principle of parity. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order cancelling the anticipatory bail of Sabita Paul. The court confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to her, emphasizing that her role was secondary to that of her son, who had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of the principle of parity and the need to focus on the specific role of the accused when considering bail applications.

Category:

Parent category: Criminal Law
Child categories: Anticipatory Bail, Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 67A, Information Technology Act, 2000

Parent category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child categories: Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child categories: Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent category: Information Technology Act, 2000
Child categories: Section 67A, Information Technology Act, 2000

FAQ

Q: What is anticipatory bail?
A: Anticipatory bail is a direction to release a person on bail if they are arrested, granted to a person who anticipates being arrested for a non-bailable offense.

Q: What is the principle of parity in bail?
A: The principle of parity suggests that if one accused person in a case has been granted bail, another accused person with a similar role or involvement may also be granted bail.

Q: What factors does a court consider when granting anticipatory bail?
A: The court considers factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, the likelihood of repeating offenses, and the potential for tampering with witnesses.

Q: What does it mean to suppress material facts in a bail application?
A: Suppressing material facts means not disclosing important information that could affect the court’s decision on a bail application.

Q: What is Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 120-B defines the offense of criminal conspiracy, which involves an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act.

Q: What is Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000?
A: Section 67A deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material in electronic form.