2023 (7) TMI 1359 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - commission of offences under Section 498A, 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - procedural requirements of Section 41A of the CrPC followed or not - HELD THAT - The paramount considerations in cases where bail or anticipatory bail is claimed are the nature and gravity of the offence, the propensity or ability of the accused to influence evidence during investigation or interfere with the trial process by threatening or otherwise trying to influence the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused to flee from justice and other such considerations. During the trial, the court is always in control of the proceedings, and it is open for it to impose any condition which it deems necessary to ensure the accused s presence and participation in the trial. The court must, in every case, be guided by these overarching principles. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that there are no startling features or elements that stand out or any exceptional fact disentitling the appellant to the grant of anticipatory bail. What is important is not that the matrimonial relationship soured almost before the couple could even settle down but whether allegations levelled against the appellant are true or partly true at this stage, which at best would be matters of conjecture, at least for this Court. However, what is a matter of record is that the time when the anticipatory bail was pending can be divided into two parts - firstly, when there was no protection afforded to him through any interim order (between April 2022 and 08.08.2022). Secondly, it was on 08.08.2022 that the High Court granted an order effectively directing the police not to arrest him during the pendency of his application under Section 438 of the CrPC. Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to such terms and conditions that the Trial Court may impose - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of anticipatory bail.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 41A of CrPC.
3. Discretionary power of courts in granting bail.
4. Personal liberty and its constitutional mandate.
5. Directions for police and judicial authorities regarding arrests.

Summary:

Denial of Anticipatory Bail:
The appellant was aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail and the direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. The appellant and the respondent-wife were married on 5.11.2020. The appellant alleged interference and pressure from the wife's family, leading to complaints and an FIR against the appellant and his family under Sections 498A, 323/504/506 IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Sessions Judge and the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appellant's anticipatory bail applications, directing him to surrender and seek regular bail.

Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 41A of CrPC:
The appellant contended that the procedural requirements of Section 41A of the CrPC must always be followed, emphasizing the distinction between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercising it. The Court reiterated the necessity for police officers to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 CrPC.

Discretionary Power of Courts in Granting Bail:
The Court highlighted that the paramount considerations in cases where bail or anticipatory bail is claimed include the nature and gravity of the offence, the propensity or ability of the accused to influence evidence, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice. The Court referred to the five-judge Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that the normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time, and conditions can be imposed by the court concerned while granting pre-arrest bail.

Personal Liberty and its Constitutional Mandate:
The Court emphasized the values of personal liberty, noting that personal liberty is an important aspect of the constitutional mandate. The Court referred to the decisions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, which underscored that arrest should not be made routinely and that the centrality of personal liberty must be considered.

Directions for Police and Judicial Authorities Regarding Arrests:
The Court directed all courts to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar and reiterated the directions contained therein. The directions included ensuring that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily, providing a checklist containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii), forwarding the checklist duly filled and furnishing reasons and materials necessitating the arrest, and ensuring that Magistrates authorize detention only after recording their satisfaction.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. The High Courts and Police Authorities in all States were required to comply with the directions within the specified time frame. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail was set aside.