In this post we will discuss whether anticipatory bail can be granted in lieu of offences committed under Section 498A, 354, 509, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Offences against Women.
Balaji Chandrakant Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra
Application of Anticipatory Bail-
Anticipatory Bail is a concept that arises when the accused fears arrest in case of commission of cognizable offences. The facility of Anticipatory Bail is provided under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to this provision a person can seek bail if he anticipates an arrest for any accusation with respect to commission of a non-bailable offence.
The present judgment emphasizes on the granting of anticipatory bail and the conditions that needs to be fulfilled for granting the same. In the instant case, an application of anticipatory bail was filed by the four applicants out of whom only two were granted the same.
NAME OF THE COURT- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
DATE OF DECISION- 16.03.2020
NAME OF THE PARTIES-
- Applicants-
- Balaji Chandrakant Bhat Joshi (Father-in-law of the Complainant)
- KalpanaBalajiBhat (Mother-in-law of the Complainant)
- Usha alias VriddhiBalajiBhat Joshi (Sister-in-law of the Complainant)
- GirirajBalajiBhat Joshi ( Husband of the Compalainant)
- Respondents-
- The State of Maharashtra
TIMELINE-
- 06.2019- Solemnization of marriage between Applicant no. 4 and the Complainant.
- 02.2020- Applicant no. 1 tried to disrobe the complainant and started misbehaving and demanding for sexual favors.
- 02.2020- Complainant found the treatment to be unbearable and left the house without informing the Applicants.
- 02.2020- F.I.R. lodged by the Complainant against the four Applicants.
- 02.2020- Certificate issued by Shree Ganesh Hospital with regards the cruelty suffered by the Complainant.
- 05.2020- Marriage of Applicant no. 3 to be solemnized.
ALSO READ- 498A ANTICIPATORY BAIL DISMISSED BY HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-
The Applicants submitted that the incidents of cruelty as narrated by the complainant were utterly false, baseless and concocted. The allegations that are put forth by the Complainant were merely to witness the four Applicants being put behind the bars. Marriage occurred during the mid-year of 2019. But there was only one incident reported that occurred on the 8th of February, 2020. The Complainant has not disclosed the date of the other incidents which showed that the allegations were plausibly false.
The Applicants’ counsel placed the contention that the Applicant no. 3 was all set to get married in May, and in the event of such an arrest, the entire wedding could be jeopardized and this would cause a grave prejudice. The Applicants contended that the sister-in-law was dragged into the case under a false pretense.
Another fact that was withheld and hidden by the Complainant was that she was undergoing a treatment for her irregular menses. Applicant no. 4 that is her husband used to take her to the doctor. This fact was suppressed by the Complainant and this was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Also none of the facts that were stated by the Complainant was corroborated with material proof or evidence. The marriage was not even consummated. Therefore, the Applicants contended that there was no point of any interrogation to be made under custody.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS/ EVIDENCES-
The application filed by the Applicant was vehemently opposed by the Respondents. They submitted that this offence of cruelty must be taken under strict notice and this offence is of a serious nature. The Complainant was allegedly subjected to repeated and continuous harassment. She did manage to get out of the house during the month of February and get treatment for her injuries. The proof of the injuries was shown as photographs and injury certificate. During the course of investigation, the witnesses’ statements were also recorded. These statements clearly disclosed the cruelty that the Complainant was subject to. A medical Certificate from a Hospital was also shown as proof. The certificate was a clear indication of a nasal bone fracture and abrasion above the nose and behind the ears.
Therefore, the Respondents contended that relief of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted.
ALSO READ- GROUNDS OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN INDIA
CONTROVERSY INVOLVED FOR ADJUDICATION-
- Whether the Applicants can be granted Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in lieu of offences committed under Section 498A, 354, 509, 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT-
The Court after having perused the F.I.R and the other documents and proof attached, came to the conclusion that the Complainant was subjected to harassment and ill treatment. She was attributed to overt and inappropriate acts by her father-in-law. Her husband has also continually assaulted her. The Court held that the primary role of assaulting, cruelty and outraging modesty was committed by the Applicants nos. 1 and 4 that is, the father-in-law and the husband of the Complainant. The other Applicants no. 2 and 3 were ladies, and the marriage of Applicant no. 3 was fixed and was to be solemnized in May.
ORDER-
The Court considered the factual matters of the case and held that the relief of Anticipatory Bail could be only be granted to Applicant no. 2 and 3, that is the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the Complainant. The relief cannot be granted to the husband and the father-in-law.
CONCLUSION-
The Court has very rightly prevented the misuse of Anticipatory Bail in this case as the Complainant was clearly subjected to severe domestic abuse and cruelty.
ALSO READ- 498A 406 IPC ANTICIPATORY BAIL HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
This post was written by Haritha Dhinakaran
For case specific advice on Anticipatory bail in 498A 406 IPC Offences one may contact best top expert Criminal Lawyers Advocates of Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh or District & Sessions Court Mohali Panchkula Kharar Derabassi.
More info on 99888-17966.
