Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 18 February 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 246
Judges: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
When can an anticipatory bail be granted in a case involving allegations of rape after a charge sheet has been filed? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the balance between personal liberty and the need for a fair investigation. This judgment pertains to an appeal against the High Court of Gujarat’s decision to reject an application for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court bench, comprising Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case originates from F.I.R. No. 11203024220505, dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh. The appellant, Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru, was accused of offences punishable under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 23.08.2024. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 16.07.2022 | F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC. |
| 23.08.2024 | The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellant. |
| 01.10.2024 | The Supreme Court granted protection against arrest to the appellant. |
| 18.02.2025 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant, Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru, filed a Criminal Misc. Application (for successive anticipatory bail) No. 16462 of 2024 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected this application on 23.08.2024, leading the appellant to file a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12437/2024 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, granted leave and allowed the appeal on 18.02.2025.
Legal Framework
This case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 493, IPC – Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage: This section deals with a situation where a man deceives a woman into believing that they are lawfully married and cohabits with her.
- Section 376(2)(n), IPC – Rape: This section pertains to the offence of rape, specifically when committed by certain individuals in positions of authority or trust.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Virat Popat, submitted that the appellant had married the prosecutrix (respondent no.2) at the age of 47 years, and it was the third marriage for both parties.
- He further submitted that the appellant had joined the investigation after being granted protection against arrest by the Supreme Court’s order dated 01.10.2024.
Respondent-State’s Arguments:
- The counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the investigation was over, and the charge-sheet had already been filed in the case, relying on the additional affidavit filed by the Investigating officer.
Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix)’s Arguments:
- The counsel for respondent no.2 (prosecutrix), Ms. Aastha Mehta, objected to granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, submitting that the appellant had cheated the respondent no.2 under the pretext of marriage.
- She further submitted that their marriage was not registered, although they had married as per their customs.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent-State) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent No. 2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage and Relationship |
✓ Appellant married prosecutrix at 47 years of age. ✓ It was the third marriage for both parties. |
N/A |
✓ Appellant cheated respondent no. 2 under the pretext of marriage. ✓ Marriage was not registered. |
| Cooperation with Investigation | ✓ Appellant joined the investigation after being granted protection against arrest. | ✓ Investigation is over; charge-sheet has been filed. | N/A |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, for offences punishable under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether anticipatory bail should be granted | Yes, anticipatory bail granted. | The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. |
Authorities
No authorities (cases, legal provisions, or books) were explicitly cited or relied upon by the Court in the provided judgment text.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Married the prosecutrix, third marriage for both, cooperated with investigation. | The Court acknowledged the submissions but did not explicitly base its decision solely on these points. |
| Respondent-State | Investigation is over, charge-sheet filed. | The Court acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed, which influenced the decision to grant anticipatory bail. |
| Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix) | Appellant cheated under the pretext of marriage, marriage not registered. | The Court acknowledged the submissions but stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
There were no authorities cited in the source.
The Supreme Court directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, he shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant was directed to continue to cooperate with the investigation. The respondent-State was given liberty to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail if any of the conditions imposed by the Trial Court are violated or breached by the appellant.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail appears to have been primarily influenced by the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed. This suggests that the investigation was substantially complete, reducing the need for custodial interrogation. The Court also considered it important not to express any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, ensuring that the trial court would not be prejudiced.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Filing of Charge-Sheet | 60% |
| No Opinion on Merits | 40% |
Fact:Law Ratio
The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide. Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by both sides and, taking into account that the charge-sheet had already been filed, decided to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. The Court emphasized that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, ensuring that the trial court would not be influenced.
“Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and to the fact that now the charge-sheet has already been filed but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.”
“Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, he shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.”
“It goes without saying that the respondent-State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail in case any of the conditions, that may be imposed by the Trial Court, are violated or breached by the appellant.”
Key Takeaways
- Anticipatory bail can be granted even after the charge-sheet has been filed, depending on the circumstances of the case.
- Cooperation with the investigation is a crucial factor in considering bail applications.
- The State retains the right to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- In the event of the arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court.
- The appellant shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.
- The State is at liberty to file for cancellation of bail if conditions are violated.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the filing of a charge-sheet is a significant factor in considering anticipatory bail. While it does not automatically guarantee bail, it indicates that the investigation has progressed, and the need for custodial interrogation may be reduced. This decision reinforces the principle that bail decisions should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru, in connection with F.I.R. No. 11203024220505. The decision was influenced by the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the Court emphasized that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The appellant is required to cooperate with the investigation, and the State retains the right to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated.