Sexual offence - any form of compromise/marriage with accused shouldn't form part of bail condition
Imran Vs State Of UP
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17906 of 2021
About/from the judgment:
The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to the victim: Allahabad High Court
In an important observation, the High Court held that while granting bail in sexual offences against a woman, bail conditions which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to the victim shouldn't be imposed such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused.
The court also ruled that the Court, while granting bail in such cases, shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another.
Importantly, in the Aparna Bhat matter, the Apex Court had held thus:
"Imposing (Bail) conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma, such as mandating mediation processes in non-compoundable offences, mandating as part of bail conditions, community service (in a manner of speaking with the so-called reformative approach towards the perpetrator of sexual offence) or requiring tendering of apology once or repeatedly, or in any manner getting or being in touch with the survivor, is especially forbidden."
The matter before the High Court
The applicant, one Imran filed a Bail Application in connection with offences under Sections 452, 377, and 506 of I.P.C., after the rejection of his Bail Application by Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad.
His counsel argued that the applicant is a driver and a married person and allegedly, the victim who is a transgender used to hire his taxi for the purpose of visiting places and the applicant had been falsely implicated in the present case to extract money from him.
The counsel for the first informant and the A.G.A relied upon the statement of the victim to submit that the first informant was victimised and was indulged in a sexual relationship forcefully, however, he did not dispute that initially for two years the applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship.
At the outset, the Court observed that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep into the merits of the matter such as the question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses which can only be tested during the trial.
The Court further remarked that the Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bail. Conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
Significantly, while granting him bail, the Court observed:
"The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused etc. and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 230, in this regard."
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!