-
by Admin
16 February 2026 5:45 AM
The Supreme Court today delivered a notable judgment in the case of Sabita Paul, involved in an alleged blackmail and extortion scheme using obscene photographs, underscoring the nuanced approach required in granting anticipatory bail. The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, highlighted the principle that grant of bail based on parity is not an absolute right but depends critically on the specific role of the accused.
The judgment dealt primarily with the criteria for granting anticipatory bail. It highlighted the factors to be considered, including the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s past conduct, the potential for evading justice, and the possibility of reoffending.
The case originated from an FIR filed in Siliguri, West Bengal, against Supratim Paul and his mother, Sabita Paul. They were accused of using obscene photographs to blackmail the complainant. Sabita Paul’s bail plea had previously been rejected, then accepted, and subsequently cancelled, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its assessment, emphasized the interconnected roles of Sabita Paul and her son, Supratim, in the alleged crime. Citing the factors from Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors for anticipatory bail, the Court found no necessity for Sabita Paul’s custodial interrogation. The Court pointed out the lack of challenge to Supratim Paul’s bail, arguing that this set a precedent for granting bail to Sabita Paul as well. Justice Karol remarked that Sabita’s involvement was primarily in conjunction with her son’s actions, without independently exacerbating the situation.
The Supreme Court allowed Sabita Paul’s appeal, affirming the order dated 12.06.2023, which had granted her anticipatory bail. This ruling overturned the High Court’s decision to cancel her bail. The condition that the appellant fully cooperate in the ongoing investigation and trial was reaffirmed.
Date of Decision: March 22, 2024
Sabita Paul vs The State of West Bengal & Anr,
