REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 936 of 2022

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8477 of 2021)

SADHNA CHAUDHARY                     APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

 & ANR.        RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Vikram Nath, J.

Leave granted.

2.The   appellant   is   the   complainant/victim/

prosecutrix.   She has filed this appeal assailing the

correctness   of   the   judgment   and   order   dated

25.08.2021   passed   by   the   Rajasthan   High   Court,

Bench   at   Jaipur   in   S.B.   Criminal   Misc.   Bail

Application No.6394 of 2021 (Kanwar Pal Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan), whereby the High Court allowed

1

the application for the relief of anticipatory bail under

Section   438   CrPC   in   FIR   No.161   of   2020,   Police

Station­Karni Vihar, Jaipur, under Sections 323, 341,

354, 379 and 376 IPC.

3.As the present case relates to an order granting

anticipatory bail, we are consciously referring to the

facts and the arguments in brief so that none of the

parties are prejudiced or the Trial Court would be

influenced by any of the observations, which may be

made by us in this order.

4.The prosecution story in brief is that, sometimes

in 2018, when the respondent no.2 was posted as a

Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Jhunjhunu, the

sister of the appellant had made a complaint against

her   in­laws   at   the   same   police   station.   The

respondent   no.2   had   kept  with  himself,   the  Bank

Pass­book, Marriage Registration Certificate, Marriage

Photographs,   Aadhar   Card   and   Birth   Certificate

relating to her sister and had told her to collect the

2

same later. On 25.09.2018, when the appellant was

called to collect the papers from the respondent no.2,

and upon her reaching Jhunjhunu, she was informed

that   papers   may   be   collected   from   his   official

residence, where she had to compulsorily go as she

had to return to Jaipur on the same day. At the

residence, the respondent no.2 offered buttermilk to

the appellant, which she claims to have innocently

consumed, but apparently the same was laced with

drugs   resulting   into   the   appellant   losing   her

consciousness.   When   she   regained   consciousness,

she found herself in a very awkward situation and

immediately realized that she had been exploited by

the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is said to

have threatened her that he has made videos and

clicked   photographs   in   obscene   and   objectionable

conditions on his mobile and if she did not continue

to accede to his demands and commands, he would

make everything public. 

3

5.The exploitation of the appellant is said to have

continued   for   almost   two   years.   In   May,   2020,

respondent no.2 came to her residence, where she

resides with her husband and children. He forcefully

took   her   in   his   Jeep   to   some   unknown   place,

physically assaulted her, snatched away her mobile,

then after driving to various places at some point his

wife and children arrived and they also assaulted her,

as a result of which, she became unconscious. She

was   saved   by   the   patrolling   vehicle   of   the   Police

department, whereafter she lodged the FIR No.161 of

2020   on   01.06.2020   for   the   offences   punishable

under Sections 376, 323, 341, 354 and 379 IPC at

the Karni Vihar Police Station, Jaipur. The FIR was

only   about   that   day’s   incident,   however,   later   on,

when the appellant recovered, she narrated the whole

story in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

6.Further,   the   case   of   the   appellant   is   that

respondent no.2 misusing his official position got a

false report registered through his wife against the

4

appellant five days later on 05.06.2020, which was

registered as FIR No.0234 of 2020, Police Station­

Jhotwara, Jaipur. It is also submitted that the said

FIR   after   investigation   has   been   found   to   be

containing completely false and incorrect facts and a

closure report has already been submitted. However,

insofar   as   the   FIR   lodged   by   the   appellant   is

concerned,   as   the   respondent   no.2   has   not   been

taken into custody, he is not co­operating with the

investigation and several articles and mobiles need to

be   recovered   from   him   for   a   fair   and   proper

investigation.  It is also necessary to have control over

the obscene videos and photographs of the appellant,

as such his judicial custody is required considering

the seriousness of the allegations. 

7.The order of anticipatory bail, which has been

passed   in   a   cursory   manner   literally   treating   the

averments contained in the petition before the High

Court to be correct needs to be set aside. It is also the

case of the appellant that respondent no.2 has further

5

misused his official position in order to lodge several

false complaints not only against the appellant but

her family members also only in order to pressurize

her to withdraw the present FIR.

8.The   State­respondent   has   filed   a   detailed

counter­affidavit.  Relevant paragraph nos.5 to 10 are

relevant which read as follows:

“5.  It   is   most   respectfully   submitted   that   the

investigation   in   the   FIR   161/2020   has

unearthed   substantial   evidence   which   proves

that Accused/Respondent No. 2, who is himself

a   police   officer,   is   guilty   of   offences   under

Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 379, 376 of IPC,

as   detailed   in   the   Factual   Report   dated

23.11.2021.

6.     Further,   on   05.06.2020,   another   FIR   No.

234/2020 was registered at the instance of one

Smt Usha Kanwar, i.e, wife of Respondents No.

2, at the Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur West,

under   Sections   143,323,341,   384,   504,   379,

452, of the IPC. After detailed investigation, it

was found that the said FIR was registered on

the basis of false information and no offence

was made out against the Petitioner and any

members of her family. As such, Final Report

under Section 173 CrPC already been filed on

27.09.2021 before the court of learned a CJM

Class­   3   Jaipur   City,   wherein   next   date   of

hearing is fixed as 25.01.2022.

A   true   translate   copy   of   the   Factual   Report

dated 25.11.2021 detailing the findings of the

6

investigation and its status is annexed herewith

and marked as Annexure­R2 (Page No. 45 to

99).

7.   In   addition   to   the   facts   stated   in   the   two

Factual Reports above, it  is  most respectfully

submitted that the Accused/Respondent No. 2

is a police officer who is well versed with the

process   of   law   and   an   insider   to   law

enforcement   machinery   in   the   State   of

Rajasthan, therefore, it is even more important

that   the   investigation   proceed   without   the

Accused/Respondent   No.   2   being   under   the

protection of the Hon’ble Court.

8.   Further,   the   fact   unearthed   in   the

investigation till now detailed in the above two

Factual   Reports   corroborate   and   prove   the

allegations made by the Petitioner. In addition,

the  FR in FIR 234/2020 details  how  a false

case   was   sought   to   be   created   against   the

Petitioner and her family.

9. It is most respectfully submitted that on the

strength of facts laid out above, the answering

Respondent   seeks   cancellation   of   the

anticipatory   bail   granted   on

Accused/Respondent No. 2. In particular, it is

imperative that all efforts be  made to find the

obscene photographs, videos, mobile phone and

clothes  bag of  the  victim in addition to  other

pieces of evidence that the Accused/Respondent

No.2 alone will have knowledge of. It may be

noted that the Accused/Respondent No. 2 has

not fully cooperated with the investigation as

noted in the Factual Report dated 23.11.2021.

10. In light of the above submissions, it is most

respectfully   prayed   before   this   Hon’ble   Court

that impugned order granting anticipatory bail

Respondent   No.   2   be   set   aside   and   the

7

Respondent­State be at liberty to proceed with

the   investigation   as   it   sees   fit,   without   the

accused being under any protection from this

Hon’ble Court.”

9.In the aforesaid counter affidavit, the Additional

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (West), Jaipur

duly authorized by the State of Rajasthan, who filed

the   affidavit,   has   stated   in   paragraph   5   that

substantial   evidence   has   been   unearthed   which

proves   that   the   respondent   no.2,   who   is   a   police

officer, is guilty of the offences, details whereof are

mentioned in the report dated 23.11.2021.

10.In   paragraph   6,   it   has   been   stated   that

respondent no.2 managed to get a false report lodged

against   the   appellant   registered   as   FIR   No.234   of

2020, which after detailed investigation was found to

be based on false information and no offence was

made   out   against   the   appellant   or   her   family

members. The final report under Section 173(2) CrPC

has already been submitted on 27.09.2021.

8

11.In   paragraph   7,   it   is   stated   that   the   police

officer, who is well­versed in the process of law and a

part of the law enforcement machinery, it is all the

more important that the investigation must proceed

without   the   respondent   no.2   being   under   the

protection of this Court.

12.In   paragraph   9,   it   is   stated   that   order   for

granting anticipatory bail needs to be cancelled in

particular for the reason that efforts are still on to

recover   the   obscene   photographs,   videos,   mobile­

phone and the bag of clothes of the victim in addition

to other pieces of evidence from the respondent no.2,

who alone would be having knowledge of the same. It

is also specifically stated in paragraph 9 that he has

not   fully   cooperated   with   the   investigation   as   is

apparent from the factual report dated 23.11.2021.

13.On the other hand, respondent no.2 has sought

to   justify   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court.

According to the learned counsel, the appellant is

exploiting   the   respondent   no.2   and   his   family

9

members, the reasons given by the High Court while

passing the order of anticipatory bail is based on

legally admissible facts and the circumstances placed

before the High Court. He also submitted that once

the High Court has exercised its discretion, this Court

may not interfere with the same.  It is also submitted

that other FIR’s registered against the appellant and

her relatives is by third persons/strangers who are

victims of extortion by the appellant and her relatives.

They have nothing to do with the respondent no.2.

14.  Law on the applicability or grant of anticipatory

bail   under   section   438   Cr.P.C.   may   be   briefly

summarised as under: ­

14.1.In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v.

State of Punjab

1

,  a Constitution Bench of this

Court,  Chief   Justice   Y.V.   Chandrachud,

speaking for the Court dealt with in detail on the

considerations for grant of anticipatory bail. 

1 (1980) 2 SCC 565

10

14.2. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of

Maharashtra   and   Others

2

;  this   Court   relying

upon the Constitution Bench judgment in  Shri

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia  laid down in paragraph

112   of   the   report   the   following   factors   and

parameters to be considered while dealing with

an application for anticipatory bail:

“(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and

the exact role of the accused must be properly

comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including

the   fact   as   to   whether   the   accused   has

previously   undergone   imprisonment   on

conviction   by   a   court   in   respect   of   any

cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from

justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to

repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only

with the object of injuring or humiliating the

applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi)   Impact   of   grant   of   anticipatory   bail

particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting

a very large number of people;

(vii)   The   courts   must   evaluate   the   entire

available   material   against   the   accused   very

carefully.   The   court   must   also   clearly

comprehend the exact role of the accused in the

case.   The   cases   in   which   the   accused   is

implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149

of   the   Penal   Code,   1860   the   court   should

consider   with   even   greater   care   and   caution

2 (2011) 1 SCC 694

11

because over­implication in the cases is a matter

of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of

anticipatory   bail,   a   balance   has   to   be   struck

between   two   factors,   namely,   no   prejudice

should   be   caused   to   the   free,   fair   and   full

investigation and there should be prevention of

harassment,   humiliation   and   unjustified

detention of the accused;

(ix)   The   court   to   consider   reasonable

apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or

apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x)   Frivolity   in   prosecution   should   always   be

considered   and   it   is   only   the   element   of

genuineness that shall have to be considered in

the matter of grant of bail and in the event of

there being some doubt as to the genuineness of

the prosecution, in the normal course of events,

the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

14.3.   In   yet   another   recent   Constitution   Bench

judgment in the case of  Sushila Aggarwal and

Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another

3

,

in paragraph 85 of the report Justice Ravindra

Bhatt laid down the guiding principles in dealing

with applications under Section 438. 

Justice M.R. Shah had authored a separate

opinion.  Justice   Arun   Misra,   Justice   Indira

Banerjee and Justice Vineet Saran agreed with

both   the   opinions.   The   concluding   guiding

3 (2020) 5 SCC 1

12

factors stated in paragraphs 92, 92.1 to 92.9 are

reproduced hereunder: 

“92. This Court, in the light of the above

discussion in the two judgments, and in

the light of the answers to the reference,

hereby clarifies that the following need to

be kept in mind by courts, dealing with

applications under Section 438 CrPC.

92.1.  Consistent   with   the   judgment

in Shri   Gurbaksh   Singh   Sibbia   and

others   v.   State   of   Punjab

4

,  when   a

person   complains   of   apprehension  of

arrest   and   approaches   for   order,   the

application should be based on concrete

facts   (and   not   vague   or   general

allegations)   relatable   to   one   or   other

specific offence. The application seeking

anticipatory   bail   should   contain   bare

essential   facts   relating   to   the   offence,

and   why   the   applicant   reasonably

apprehends arrest, as well as his side of

the   story.   These   are   essential   for   the

court   which   should   consider   his

application,   to   evaluate   the   threat   or

apprehension, its gravity or seriousness

and the appropriateness of any condition

that may have to be imposed. It is not

essential that an application should be

moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be

moved earlier, so long as the facts are

clear and there is reasonable basis for

apprehending arrest.

92.2. It may be advisable for the court,

which is approached with an application

under Section   438,  depending   on   the

seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to

issue notice to the public prosecutor and

4 (1980) 2 SCC 565

13

obtain facts, even while granting limited

interim anticipatory bail.

92.3.  Nothing   in   Section   438   Cr.   PC,

compels   or   obliges   courts   to   impose

conditions   limiting   relief   in   terms   of

time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording

of   statement   of   any   witness,   by   the

police,   during   investigation   or   inquiry,

etc. While considering an application (for

grant of anticipatory bail) the court has

to consider the nature of the offence, the

role of the person, the likelihood of his

influencing the course of investigation,

or   tampering   with   evidence   (including

intimidating   witnesses),   likelihood   of

fleeing   justice   (such   as   leaving   the

country),   etc.   The   courts   would   be

justified   –   and   ought   to   impose

conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3),

Cr.P.C. [by virtue of Section 438 (2)]. The

need   to   impose   other   restrictive

conditions, would have to be judged on a

case­by­case basis, and depending upon

the materials produced by the state or

the investigating agency. Such special or

other   restrictive   conditions   may   be

imposed if the case or cases warrant, but

should   not   be   imposed   in   a   routine

manner,   in   all   cases.   Likewise,

conditions   which   limit   the   grant   of

anticipatory bail may be granted, if they

are required in the facts of any case or

cases; however, such limiting conditions

may not be invariably imposed.

92.4.  Courts   ought   to   be   generally

guided   by   considerations   such   as   the

nature and gravity of the offences, the

role attributed to the applicant, and the

facts   of   the   case,   while   considering

whether   to   grant   anticipatory   bail,   or

refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a

14

matter   of   discretion;   equally   whether

and if so, what kind of special conditions

are to be imposed (or not imposed) are

dependent   on   facts   of   the   case,   and

subject to the discretion of the court.

92.5.   Anticipatory   bail   granted   can,

depending on the conduct and behaviour

of the accused, continue after filing of

the charge­sheet till end of trial.

92.6.   An   order   of   anticipatory   bail

should not be “blanket” in the sense that

it   should   not   enable   the   accused   to

commit further offences and claim relief

of   indefinite   protection   from   arrest.   It

should   be   confined   to   the   offence   or

incident,   for   which   apprehension   of

arrest is sought, in relation to a specific

incident. It cannot operate in respect of a

future incident that involves commission

of an offence.

92.7. An order of anticipatory bail does

not in any manner limit or restrict the

rights   or   duties   of   the   police   or

investigating agency, to investigate into

the   charges   against   the   person   who

seeks and is granted prearrest bail.

92.8.   The   observations   in   Sibbia

regarding “limited  custody” or “deemed

custody” to facilitate the requirements of

the   investigative   authority,   would   be

sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the

provisions of Section 27, in the event of

recovery of an article, or discovery of a

fact, which is relatable to a statement

made   during   such   event   (i.e   deemed

custody).   In   such   event,   there   is   no

question   (or   necessity)   of   asking

the accused to separately surrender and

15

seek   regular   bail.   Sibbia   (supra)   had

observed that 

“if and when the occasion arises, it

may be possible for the prosecution to

claim the benefit  of Section 27 of the

Evidence Act in regard to a discovery

of   facts   made   in   pursuance   of

information   supplied   by   a   person

released   on   bail   by   invoking   the

principle stated by this Court in State

of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya

5

.”

92.9.   It   is   open   to   the   police   or   the

investigating agency to move the court

concerned,   which   grants   anticipatory

bail, for a direction under Section 439 (2)

to  arrest  the  accused,  in  the  event  of

violation   of   any   term,   such   as

absconding,   non  cooperating   during

investigation,   evasion,   intimidation   or

inducement to witnesses with a view to

influence outcome of the investigation or

trial, etc.”

15.Having considered the submissions, the material

on record, in particular the stand taken by the State­

respondent no.1 in their counter affidavit, and the law

on the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, we are of

the   view   that   considering   the   seriousness   of   the

offences alleged, this was not a fit case for grant of

5 AIR 1960 SC 1125

16

anticipatory   bail,   when   according   to   the   State,

recoveries are yet to be made and the respondent no.2

has not extended full cooperation in the investigation.

16.The Respondent no.2 is not a common man,

being a law­abiding person. His adherence to law has

to be more stringent than expected in general by a

common man, which apparently, he failed to observe. 

17.We also feel that High Court has proceeded to

accept the case as set up by the respondent no.2 in

his petition to be true and on that basis proceeded to

grant anticipatory bail. The High Court in our opinion

committed an error.

18.Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

The impugned judgment and order of the High Court

dated 25.08.2021 is set aside and the application

under Section 438 CrPC filed by the respondent no.2

is dismissed.

17

19.We grant two weeks’ time to the respondent no.2

to surrender, failing which, the Investigating Agency

would   be   at   liberty   to   arrest   him   forthwith   and

proceed   with   the   investigation   in   a   fair   and

reasonable manner as per law.

20.The observations made hereinabove are only for

disposal of the appeal.  If regular bail application is

filed,   it   may   be   considered   on   its   own   merits   in

accordance with law without being influenced by any

of the observations made above.

21.The appeal stands allowed as above.

…………..........................J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

………….........................J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

NEW DELHI

JULY 12, 2022. 

18