Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 700 - SC - Indian LawsApplication for grant of anticipatory bail - Commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376, 342 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and u/s 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act - Respondents herein comprise of police officers, politicians and a businessman - HELD THAT:- Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence, being u/s 376, 376(2)(g) IPC, in our opinion, are required to be satisfied. [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran and Ors.[2007 (2) TMI 701 - SUPREME COURT]. A mistake in regard to her age as recorded in the First Information Report or the first medical document or even in her supplementary affidavit should yield to the public documents which have been produced by the prosecution at this stage. Even before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, she disclosed her date of birth to be 22.06.1991. Therefore, even according to that she was below 16 years of age. Immoral conduct on the part of police officers should not be encouraged. We fail to understand as to how the police officers could go underground. They had been changing their residence very frequently. Although most of them were police officers, their whereabouts were not known. During the aforementioned period attempts had been made even by Mahananda to obtain the custody of the girl at whose instance, we do not know. On the one hand, Mahananda had been praying for the custody of the girl and Sunita, the mother of the girl, as noticed hereinbefore, had affirmed an affidavit in relation to her date of birth. These may not be acts of voluntariness on their part. It, therefore, in our opinion, is a case where no anticipatory bail should have been granted. We may also notice that the High Court itself has refused to grant regular bail to the accused against whom charge-sheet has been submitted. The learned Session Judge also did not grant bail to some of the accused persons. If on the same materials, prayer for regular bail has been rejected, we fail to see any reason as to why and on what basis the respondents could be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Thus, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The respondents may surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and move an application for regular bail, which may be considered on its own merit without being influenced, in any way, by the judgment of this Court.
|