Bail should be revoked if the offender caused terror in the complainant. – Apex Court

Apex Court observed in the latest judgement (Ms.P vs State of MP D.D 05th May 2022) that the respondent No.2 has evoked fear in the mind of the appellant/complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail. It is noteworthy that a representation has also been submitted by the appellant's father to the Superintendent of Police, District Jabalpur.

Facts - In the FIR dated 21 June 2021, it is alleged that respondent No. 2/accused enticed the appellant/complainant to develop a physical connection with him under the false pretext of marrying her. In July of 2020, he and his sister are said to have brought her to a private hospital in Jabalpur and coerced her into ingesting abortion drugs without her consent. Upon being approached by the appellant, he flatly refused to perform the wedding ceremony. Based on the appellant's allegation, the FIR was filed against the second respondent on June 21, 2021.

Apprehending his arrest respondent No. 2/ accused filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., before Sessions Judge , seeking anticipatory bail. Also dismissed by High Court and Apex Court.

A charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution on 25th October, 2021. Within four days, respondent No. 2 applied for regular bail in session court but same was dismissed but allowed by High Court. Aggrieved by the relief granted to him, the appellant/ complainant moved to Apex court.

Appellant contended that the High Court has erred in overlooking the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 2 and his father who are politically well connected and are in an influential position due to which there is an apprehension of threat to the appellant. Also drew the attention of Court to photographs of the appellant with vermillion applied on her forehead as a symbol of having sanctified their relationship in the eyes of the society. In the process, the appellant had conceived which pregnancy was also got forcibly terminated by the Respondent No.2. It was submitted that after being released on regular bail, respondent no. 2 started threatening the appellant when she was out on bail.

Apex Court observed that the court must determine whether any intervening circumstances have emerged or if the defendant's post-bail behaviour suggests that the conditions are no longer conducive to a fair trial. In normal circumstances, appellant court would be reluctant to overturn a bail order issued by a lower court.

Apex court mentioned the following are instances, which are illustrative in nature, in which the accused's bail granted under Section 439 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code may be revoked:-

1. a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;
2. b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
3. c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
4. d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
5. e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
6. f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;
7. g) If he is likely to flee from the country;
8. h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;
9. i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.
10. j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.

Apex Court further observed that the impugned order reveals that the High Court has made short shrift of the submissions made by the prosecution counsel to the effect that in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the appellant/complainant has not waivered and stuck to her version and the fact that the respondent No. 2 has previous criminal history. Accused involved in at least four criminal cases.

Regular Bail Set Aside.

D.D- May 05, 2022.

MS. P.  VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER