LEGAL ISSUE: Grant of Anticipatory Bail in cases of alleged rape.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Delhi

[Judgment Date]: March 07, 2022

Date of the Judgment: March 07, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 203

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can an individual facing serious allegations, such as rape, be granted anticipatory bail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, providing relief to an appellant who was facing charges under Sections 376 (rape), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court’s decision highlights the importance of personal liberty and the conditions under which anticipatory bail can be granted. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) No. 300/2019, dated May 21, 2019, registered at the New Ashok Nagar Police Station in East Delhi. The appellant, Abhishek Kumar, was accused of offenses under Sections 376, 328, 506, and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Fearing arrest, Mr. Kumar sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His application was initially rejected by the High Court of Delhi.

Timeline:

Date Event
May 21, 2019 First Information Report (FIR) No. 300/2019 registered at New Ashok Nagar Police Station, East Delhi.
2019 Abhishek Kumar filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
October 11, 2019 High Court of Delhi rejected Abhishek Kumar’s anticipatory bail application.
December 18, 2019 Supreme Court issued notice and granted interim relief, directing no coercive action against the appellant.
March 07, 2022 Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to Abhishek Kumar.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi rejected the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. On December 18, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a notice and granted interim relief, ensuring that no coercive action was taken against Mr. Kumar. This interim relief remained in effect for over two years, until the final judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail. This provision allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest. The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under which the FIR was registered are:

  • Section 376: Defines the offense of rape and prescribes its punishment.
  • Section 328: Deals with causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offense.
  • Section 506: Defines the offense of criminal intimidation and its punishment.
  • Section 313: Deals with causing miscarriage without a woman’s consent.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023)

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were not explicitly detailed in the provided document. However, it can be inferred that the appellant argued for the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing his cooperation with the investigation and the interim relief granted by the Supreme Court. The respondent, the State of Delhi, likely opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offenses.

The arguments can be categorized as follows:

Appellant’s Submissions Respondent’s Submissions
✓ The appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. ✓ The appellant should not be granted anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the offenses.
✓ The appellant has cooperated with the investigation.
✓ The appellant has been under interim protection for over two years.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues in the provided document. However, the core issue before the court was whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail given the nature of the charges against him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Issue How the Court Dealt with the Issue
Whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail? The Court, considering the entirety of the situation, granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. The Court took into account the interim protection enjoyed by the appellant for over two years and the fact that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation.

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or legal provisions beyond the sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, no authorities were considered in this case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, subject to the following conditions:

  • The appellant must furnish a cash security of Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties.
  • The appellant must fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and present himself before the Investigating Officer whenever required.
Submission by the Parties How the Court Treated the Submission
The appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court agreed with this submission and granted anticipatory bail.
The appellant has cooperated with the investigation. The Court noted this and considered it in favor of granting bail.
The appellant has been under interim protection for over two years. The Court considered the long duration of interim protection as a factor in favor of granting bail.
The appellant should not be granted anticipatory bail due to the seriousness of the offenses. The Court did not accept this submission.

The Court did not rely on any specific authorities in this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The appellant had already been under interim protection for over two years, indicating that his liberty had not posed a threat to the investigation or the public.
  • The appellant’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Thika Tenancy: Nemai Chandra Kumar vs. Mani Square Ltd. (27 July 2022)
Sentiment Analysis Percentage
Interim Protection 50%
Cooperation with Investigation 50%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 60%
Law 40%
Appellant seeks anticipatory bail
↓
High Court rejects bail application
↓
Supreme Court grants interim protection
↓
Supreme Court considers appellant’s cooperation and duration of interim protection
↓
Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail

The court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for a fair investigation. The court noted that the appellant had been under interim protection for over two years, and had cooperated with the investigation during that time.

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or legal principles, focusing primarily on the specific facts of the case and the appellant’s conduct.

The court stated, “Considering the entirety of the situation, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.”

The court also stated, “The appellant shall extend complete co-operation in the ensuing investigation and in order to facilitate the investigation, the appellant shall present himself before the Investigating Officer as and when his presence is requisitioned by the Investigating Officer.”

The court further stated, “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 serious cases like rape, provided the individual demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
  • The duration of interim protection and the conduct of the accused during that period are significant factors considered by the court.
  • The Supreme Court prioritizes personal liberty while ensuring the integrity of the investigation process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

  • In the event of the appellant’s arrest, he must be released on bail upon furnishing a cash security of Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties.
  • The appellant must cooperate fully with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail is not automatically denied in serious cases and emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and cooperation with the investigation. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment highlights the factors considered by the court while granting anticipatory bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Delhi demonstrates a balanced approach to granting anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the seriousness of the charges, the court prioritized the appellant’s personal liberty, given his cooperation with the investigation and the extended period of interim protection. The judgment underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring fair process while upholding the principles of justice.

Source: Abhishek Kumar vs. State of Delhi