LexBHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH versus STATE OF GUJARAT &ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 10 S.C.R. 398 BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH v. STATE OF GUJARAT &ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438 -Anticipatory C bail - Grant of- Charge framed against appellant in the year 2001 only uls. 506(2) /PC on the basis of the statement recorded-Addition of charge u/s.376 IPC nine years later- Order passed for committal of proceedings to Sessions Court and taking the appellantinto custody - Application by the 0 appellant for anticipatory bail - Grant of, by the Sessions Judge, however, cancellation by the High Court-Justification of- Held: Merely because the charge u/s. 376 IPC, which is a serious charge, is now added, the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be denied when such a charge is added later E and inaction of the prosecutrix is also a contributory factor- Further, no purpose would be served in compelling the appellant to go behind bars, as an undertrial, by refusing the anticipatory bail in respect of alleged incident - Judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and that by the F Sessions Judge, is restored - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376, 506. G Bail -Anticipatory bail - Grant or refusal of- Factors to be taken into consideration - Stated. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, where allegations of rape pertain to the period which is almost 17 years ago and when no charge was framed under Section 376 IPC H 398 BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH v. STATE OF GUJARAT 399 in the year 2001, and even the prosecutrix did not take A any steps for almost 9 years and the charge under Section 376 IPC is added only in the year 2014, there is no reason why the appellant should not be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. Merely because the charge under Section 376 IPC, which is a serious charge, is now B added, the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be denied when such a charge is added after a long period of time and inaction of the prosecutrix is also a contributory . factor. [Para 17] [412-B-C] 1.2 Having regard to the facts of the case, no purpose would be served in compelling the appellant to go behind bars, as an undertrial, by refusing the anticipatory bail in respect of alleged incident which is 17 years old and c for which the charge is framed only in the year 2014. The D investigation is complete and there is no allegation that the appellant may flee the course of justice. The FIR was registered and the trial commenced in the year 2001; albeit with the charge framed under Section 506(2) IPC, and during all these periods, the appellant has E participated in the proceedings. There is no allegation that during this period he had tried to influence the witnesses. In the said circumstances, even when there is a serious charge levelled against the appellant, that by itself should not be the reason to deny anticipatory F bail when the matter is examined keeping in view other factors enumerated. [Para 24] [421-G-H; 422-A-C] 1.3 The impugned judgment is set aside and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting G anticipatory bail to the appellant on the conditions mentioned in the said order is restored. [Para ~7] [422- G] Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 sec 565: 1980 (3) SCR 383 - followed. H 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694: 2010 (15) SCR 201 - referred to. B Case Law Reference 1980 (3) SCR 383 2010 (15) SCR 201 followed. referred to. Para 19 Para 22 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal C Nos.1134-1135of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Gujarat atAhmadabad in Criminal Misc. Application (for cancellation of bail) No. 9440 of 2013 o with Criminal Misc. Application No. 15929 of 2013. Dushyant Dave, Harin Raval, Anirudh Sharma, Samar Kachwaha, Nachiket Dave, Raghavendra M. Bajaj, Anando Mukherjee, Nipur Saxena, Praveen Kumar Hota for the E Appellant. F Respondent-in-Person, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal Wahi, Puja Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant herein, in these appeals, challenges the validity of the judgment dated 18.07.2014 passed by High Court G of Judicature at Gujarat cancelling the anticipatory bail which was granted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.