2021 (4) TMI 1372 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - informant was abused by the applicant and co-accused, knowing that he belongs to scheduled caste - no specific role was assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. - HELD THAT - It is a settled principle of law that a man cannot be stated to be guilty unless his guilt is proved after adducing reliable evidence. Sending a person to custody after finding his guilt is a rule. But before finding the accused guilty, it is not always possible or permissible to conclude on the basis of the charge-sheet or on the basis of the process issued under Section 204 in a complaint case that custody of that person is necessary. The word bail has not been defined in the Code, the literal meaning of the word bail is to set free or liberate a person on security being given of his appearance. The most crucial part of the investigation lies in the examination of witnesses. The statements made by them can hold a person guilty. The police officer who is investigating the case has been empowered to conduct witness examination. The witnesses are bound to answer the questions which are related to the case truly. Section 161 lays down the procedure for the examination of witnesses by the police. There should be no delay on the part of the police officer investigating the case in examining the witnesses. In the event of a delay of the examination of the witness, the onus lies on the investigating officer for explaining the reasons for the delay. The purpose of a charge-sheet is to notify a person of criminal charges being issued against them. After the charge-sheet is filed, the person against whom the charge-sheet has been filed comes to be known as an accused. The filing of charge-sheet with the magistrate indicates commencement of criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in number of cases that fair investigation, which precedes filing of charge-sheet, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it must be fair, transparent and judicious. A tainted and biased investigation leads to filing of a charge-sheet which is infact based on no investigation and therefore, the charge-sheet filed in pursuance of such an investigation cannot be held to be legal and in accordance with law. In the present case, from the perusal of the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, this Court finds that the incident in dispute took place on 04.04.2020 when the first corona wave was sweeping the country and the informant has stated that being a journalist, he got the crowd removed with the help of police since there were chances of spread of infection. Thereafter, the applicant and co-accused persons threatened him not to become a big journalist and he was subjected to caste related abuses and his mother and sister were subjected to abuses. When he tried to speak, they used the word chamaar etc., and he was beaten by legs and fists. When he raised alarm, Kamlesh and Rajbir Singh came and saved him. Thereafter, the accused persons left the scene, threatening him of life. Both the accused persons are habitual of misbehaving with the people of locality. The statements of other witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer also proves the above allegations - From the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, the allegation of intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste in public view by taking his caste name is fully proved. Bail application rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and grounds for granting anticipatory bail after the submission of a charge-sheet.
2. Examination of the fairness of the police investigation and the charge-sheet.
3. Evaluation of the specific allegations and evidence against the accused.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Grounds for Granting Anticipatory Bail After Submission of Charge-Sheet:
The court examined whether anticipatory bail can be granted after the submission of a charge-sheet. It referred to the case of Adil Vs. State of U.P., which established that anticipatory bail could be granted in "appropriate cases" even after the submission of a charge-sheet. The judgment highlighted that the term "appropriate cases" was not explicitly defined in Adil’s case. The court clarified that anticipatory bail should be considered in cases where the charge-sheet and process issued by the court can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment listed several scenarios where anticipatory bail could be granted, such as when the F.I.R. or complaint does not make out a case against the accused, or where the allegations are inherently improbable.

2. Examination of the Fairness of the Police Investigation and the Charge-Sheet:
The court emphasized the importance of fair investigation as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It referred to various Supreme Court judgments that underscored the necessity of unbiased, honest, and transparent investigations. The court noted that the police must not merely aim to obtain convictions but should strive to uncover the truth. The judgment discussed the procedural requirements for investigations, including the recording of witness statements and the preparation of charge-sheets. The court also noted the historical context of the police system in India and the challenges faced by investigating officers.

3. Evaluation of the Specific Allegations and Evidence Against the Accused:
In the present case, the court reviewed the allegations made in the F.I.R., which included caste-based abuse and threats by the accused. The court considered the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, which corroborated the informant's allegations. The court found that the allegations of intimidation and caste-based humiliation were fully proved by the witness statements. Consequently, the court determined that the case did not qualify for anticipatory bail under the conditions laid out in the judgment.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the anticipatory bail application should be rejected based on the specific circumstances of the case and the evidence presented. The judgment provided a comprehensive framework for evaluating anticipatory bail applications after the submission of charge-sheets, emphasizing the need for fair investigations and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution.