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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.