2018 (10) TMI 1990 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - contravention to the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence - offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also offences under Sections 4, 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - HELD THAT - The High Court ordering the tests is not only in contravention to the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also violates statutory requirements. While adjudicating a bail application, Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the guiding principle wherein Court takes into consideration, inter alia, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds. In the instant case, by ordering the abovementioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a minitrial indeed. This assumption of function of a trial court by the High Court is deprecated. Taking note of the violation of settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions vis- -vis conversion of adjudication of bail application to a minitrial and disclosure of identity of the victim by the High Court, we disapprove the manner in which the High Court has adjudicated the bail application and accordingly, quash the order passed by the High Court - the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail granted by High Court in a case involving serious offences under IPC and POCSO Act, violation of settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence, disclosure of victim's identity, lethargic attitude of the State in filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. Bail Grant by High Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order granting bail to the accused (Respondent No. 2) for offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m), and 10 of the POCSO Act was in contravention of established criminal law principles. The High Court's decision to order scientific tests and delve into their reports exceeded the scope of a bail application, resembling a mini-trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that bail decisions should primarily focus on the prima facie case against the accused, not detailed evidence examination.

2. Disclosure of Victim's Identity:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for repeatedly disclosing the identity of the victim throughout the impugned order. Citing Section 228A IPC and relevant case law, the Court highlighted the legal provisions safeguarding the anonymity of victims, especially in cases of sexual offences. The Court underscored the importance of protecting the victim's identity to prevent social victimization and ostracism, as mandated by statutory provisions like the POCSO Act.

3. Lethargic State Response:
The Supreme Court expressed disappointment in the State's inaction regarding the violations observed in the High Court's order. Despite clear breaches of criminal law principles and statutory requirements, the State failed to file an appeal, prompting the victim's grandmother to approach the Court. The Court emphasized the State's duty to uphold legal standards and ensure timely legal recourse in such cases.

4. Judgment and Directions:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's bail order. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits but directed the trial court to expedite proceedings due to the seriousness of the allegations against Respondent No. 2. The Court concluded by highlighting the importance of adhering to legal principles and protecting victims' identities in line with statutory provisions like the POCSO Act.

This comprehensive analysis delves into the key issues raised in the Supreme Court's judgment, addressing the nuances of bail decisions, victim protection, State responsibilities, and judicial directions in cases involving serious criminal offences and statutory violations.