The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the restriction on anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in specific rape cases involving minors is not absolute. This decision comes as a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding anticipatory bail in sensitive cases.
Understanding Section
482 BNSS and Its Implications
Section 482 BNSS limits the
provision of anticipatory bail for offences specified under Sections
65 and 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. Section 65 of BNS addresses the rape of
minors under the age of 12 years, while Section 70(2) penalises gang rape
involving minors.
Justice Sumeet Goel emphasised
that while a plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 482 BNSS is permissible, it is subject to
stringent judicial scrutiny. The court can grant anticipatory bail only when
the case does not present a prima facie offence, appears to be motivated, or where not granting bail would result
in a miscarriage of
justice or abuse of the legal process.
Judicial Approach
to Anticipatory Bail in Sensitive
Cases
Justice Goel underscored that the
judicial approach to anticipatory bail must be cautious, given the gravity of
offences involving minors. Each case has unique circumstances that affect the decision, making
it impractical to establish a fixed set of criteria for all cases. The
court's assessment depends on the factual matrix of each case.
Case Background: FIR No.203 and
Allegations
The court's observations stemmed
from a plea for anticipatory bail in FIR No.203,
dated July 13, 2024. This FIR involves allegations of repeated rape of a
15-year-old girl by a man who allegedly threatened her to keep silent. The
petitioner, accused in this case, claims he was falsely
implicated and was actually
a protector of the victim
from other boys.
Arguments and Court’s Deliberation
The petitioner’s counsel argued
for bail, asserting false implication and claiming that the petitioner had intervened
to protect the victim. Conversely, the State Counsel contended that
anticipatory bail is barred by Section 482(4) of BNSS 2023, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation for effective investigation.
Justice Goel reviewed the legal provisions and the intent
behind them, noting that provisions under Sections
376(3), 376AB, 376DA, and 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were introduced to
safeguard children and underscore the severity of sexual offences. The intent
is to protect minors and ensure a safe environment for their growth.
The Court’s
Perspective on Anticipatory Bail
Justice Goel highlighted that
the denial of anticipatory bail impacts individual liberty, a core value
in the judicial system.
He noted that bail should
not be refused arbitrarily but should be considered carefully, weighing
the implications for both the individual and society.
Cautionary Note on Anticipatory Bail
The court cautioned that anticipatory bail under Section
482 BNSS 2023 is only available if the applicant can
demonstrate that no prima facie case exists. The decision to grant such bail
must be supported by cogent reasons and thorough judicial analysis.
In the present case, Justice Goel found the petitioner’s claims of
false implication
unconvincing. The court noted that there was insufficient basis to support the
petitioner’s allegations of false implication or monetary disputes influencing
the case.
Conclusion: Custodial Interrogation Deemed Necessary
Given the serious nature of the
accusations involving a minor, Justice Goel concluded that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is essential for a thorough investigation. Consequently, the plea for anticipatory bail was rejected, reinforcing the need for a careful and balanced approach to
such sensitive matters.
This ruling emphasizes the need for a nuanced
understanding of anticipatory bail provisions in cases involving minors and underscores the
importance of safeguarding the judicial process while addressing severe
allegations.
Post a Comment