Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Atrocities Act Case, Citing “No Ingredients of Sections 107 or 306 of IPC Made Out”
In a significant judgment delivered on March 7, 2024, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Judge J.C. Doshi, granted anticipatory bail to the appellants in the case of Poonam Anshul Singh vs. State of Gujarat. This decision was made in the backdrop of an FIR filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and concerns raised under Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court noted, “Even if the FIR is taken as gospel truth, no ingredients of sections 107 or 306 of the IPC are made out.” This observation became a pivotal point in the court’s decision to grant bail, as it highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses.
The case, filed with Manjalpur Police Station under FIR No. 11196003230874, involved complex issues surrounding the alleged abetment of suicide. The court referred to several notable judgments, including ‘Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka’ and ‘Kashibai and others Vs. State of Karnataka’, to underscore the challenges in proving abetment of suicide and understanding the context of the deceased’s actions.
In its detailed analysis, the court observed that the delayed filing of the FIR and the absence of direct allegations against the petitioners in the suicide note were significant considerations. The judgment further reassured, “The appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of like amount,” imposing strict conditions to ensure their cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
This decision marks an important development in the jurisprudence of anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, particularly concerning the statutory bar operating in such cases. The court, taking cognizance of the ‘Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of India’ case, carefully balanced the statutory restrictions with the facts of the case.
In conclusion, the court clarified, “At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellants on bail.” This statement underlines the court’s commitment to ensuring a fair and unbiased trial, despite its observations and the decision to grant anticipatory bail.
Date of Decision: 7th March 2024
POONAM ANSHUL SINGH VS STATE OF GUJARAT
