Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

‘d'' v. Tilakdhari Saroj & Ors

‘d'' v. Tilakdhari Saroj & Ors

(Supreme Court Of India)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2389 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO.5473 of 2023) | 03-05-2024

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the mother of the victim, a young girl, who was allegedly subjected to sexual assault, leading to the registration of FIR No.41 of 2022 on the file of Police Station Pali, District Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 363, 376, 376-B and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC’) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short `POCSO Act’). Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short `SC and ST Act’) was also added subsequently.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the grant of bail to respondent No.1 herein, one of the accused in the said FIR. Pertinent to note, respondent No.1 is the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police Station at Pali, District Lalitpur.

4. According to the prosecution, the victim girl, who was aged about 13 years at the time of incident, was placed in the custody of respondent No.1 herein on 27.04.2022 in connection with registering a complaint against four men, who were alleged to have sexually assaulted her. The allegation against respondent No.1 is that he grossly abused his office and committed rape on the minor victim girl himself.

5. In the light of this serious allegation, the question that arises is, whether the High Court of Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad was justified in granting regular bail to him.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 reflects that the High Court noted the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties and baldly stated that the prosecution’s allegations do not inspire confidence. The High Court observed that the electronic data and call details showed that the victim (wrongly mentioned as the ‘deceased’) was not in the police station on 27.04.2022. Significantly, it is no one’s case that the victim had a mobile phone. The High Court, thereafter, opined as under:

“13. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicants being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.”

7. Based on the aforesaid reasoning, the High Court granted bail to respondent No.1 herein, subject to conditions.

8. This Court had occasion to consider the issue of grant of bail to a police official in a situation where he is alleged to have abused his office in State of Jharkand vs. Sandeep Kumar 2024 INSC 179 and held against any lenience being shown, by treating such an accused policeman on par with a common man accused of such an offence. Notably, that was not even a case involving a heinous offence. In the present case, the situation is far worse as respondent No.1, being the Station House Officer of the Police Station, where the minor victim girl was brought for securing her justice, is alleged to have resorted to committing the same heinous crime of raping her.

9. In this situation, his prayer for grant of bail required more than the cursory appraisal that was bestowed by the High Court. We do not find any reasons worth the name justifying the grant of bail to respondent No.1 at this stage.

10. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 43236 of 2022. Respondent No.1 shall surrender forthwith, failing which the State shall take necessary steps to apprehend him and send him to judicial custody.

Advocate List

  • Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv. Ms. Rachna Tyagi,, Adv. Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, AOR Ms. Bindita Chatuvedi,, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv.

  • Mr. Amardeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Saini, Adv. Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv. Ms. Preeti, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR, Mr. A.K.Misra. A.G., Sr. Adv. Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh., Adv. Mr. Prakash Sharma, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Raj, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri., Adv. Mr. R.K.Dey, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma., Adv

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/SC/2024/595
Head Note

Bail — Grant of — Station House Officer (SHO) accused of raping minor victim girl who was brought to police station by her for registering complaint against others for sexually assaulting her — Held, High Court was not justified in granting regular bail to SHO-accused in a very cursory and unsatisfactory manner without proper appreciation of gravity of allegation that he grossly abused his office to commit rape on minor victim girl — Rape is a heinous crime, more so when committed by man in uniform, who is supposed to prevent crime and protect victims — Call details not reliable as it was nobody's case that minor victim had mobile phone — Impugned order set aside and accused-SHO directed to surrender forthwith — Constitution of India — Arts. 20 & 21 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 363, 376, 376B & 120B — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Ss. 3 & 4 — Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — S. 3(2)(v) (Paras 6, 8 & 10)