SADHNA CHAUDHARY versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 12-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
SADHNA CHAUDHARY
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 936 of 2022)
JULY 12, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Anticipatory Bail
– Cancellation of – Accused-Station House officer on the fateful
day, exploited the victim – Exploitation continued for two years on
account of threats of making public, the videos and photographs
of her in obscene and objectionable conditions which he had on
his mobile, if she did not continue to accede to his demands and
commands – Thereafter, registration of FIR against SHO for the
offences punishable u/ss. 376, 323, 341, 354 and 379 IPC by the
victim – Application for anticipatory bail by the SHO – Allowed by
the High Court – On appeal, Held: Considering the seriousness of
the offences alleged, not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail –
Recoveries are yet to be made and the accused has not extended
full cooperation in the investigation – Accused is not a common
man, his adherence to law has to be more stringent than expected in
general by a common man, which apparently, he failed to observe –
High Court accepted the case as set up by the accused to be true
and on that basis proceeded to grant anticipatory bail thus,
committed an error – Order passed by the High Court set aside.
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383;
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
and Others (2011) 1 SCC 69 : [2010] 15 SCR 201;
Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi)
and Another (2020) 5 SCC 1 : [2020] 2 SCR 1; State of
U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1980] 3 SCR 383
followed
Para 14.1
[2010] 15 SCR 201
referred to
Para 14.2
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 239
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
[2020] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 14.3
AIR 1960 SC 1125
referred to
Para 14.3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
936 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in SB Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 6394 of 2021.
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Rajendra Kr. Panigrahi, Nishant Bahuguna,
Vidit Agarwal, Subham Jalan, Ms. Prachi Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ketan Paul, Amartya Bhushan, Tushar Bhushan, Dr. Nirmal
Chopra, Manav, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the complainant/victim/ prosecutrix. She has
filed this appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order
dated 25.08.2021 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6394 of 2021 (Kanwar Pal
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan), whereby the High Court allowed the
application for the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in
FIR No.161 of 2020, Police Station-Karni Vihar, Jaipur, under Sections
323, 341, 354, 379 and 376 IPC.
3. As the present case relates to an order granting anticipatory
bail, we are consciously referring to the facts and the arguments in brief
so that none of the parties are prejudiced or the Trial Court would be
influenced by any of the observations, which may be made by us in this
order.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that, sometimes in 2018, when
the respondent no.2 was posted as a Station House Officer, Mahila Thana,
Jhunjhunu, the sister of the appellant had made a complaint against her
in-laws at the same police station. The respondent no.2 had kept with
himself, the Bank Pass-book, Marriage Registration Certificate, Marriage
Photographs, Aadhar Card and Birth Certificate relating to her sister
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
and had told her to collect the same later. On 25.09.2018, when the
appellant was called to collect the papers from the respondent no.2, and
upon her reaching Jhunjhunu, she was informed that papers may be
collected from his official residence, where she had to compulsorily go
as she had to return to Jaipur on the same day. At the residence, the
respondent no.2 offered buttermilk to the appellant, which she claims to
have innocently consumed, but apparently the same was laced with drugs
resulting into the appellant losing her consciousness. When she regained
consciousness, she found herself in a very awkward situation and
immediately realized that she had been exploited by the respondent no.2.
The respondent no.2 is said to have threatened her that he has 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.