Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani, Uttarakhand High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the appellants, considered the chain of events most unfortunate. While granting bail, the Court noted that, "Anticipatory bail is a step to protect personal liberty of a person in the eventuality of arrest".

In the pertinent case, in an FIR it was alleged that the applicant (herein) used to abuse her in-laws, while had her eyes over their property. And even demanded Rs. 40 Lakhs from them. And since the applicant pressed false molestation charges against her father-in-law, that resultantly drove him into depression and thereafter he committed suicide. Therefore the appellants sought for an anticipatory bail, in an FIR under Section 306 of IPC. 

While it was the case of the appellants that the deceased (father-in-law) molested appellant's daughter for which an  FIR was lodged on 23.05.2022 under Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 354 of IPC. And a video recording corroborating the same, where the daughter accepted to the fact, was also provided to the Court. However, the same was contended by the other party, stating that the appellant's daughter was coerced into it, and a transcript of the conversation was provided to the Court.

The Court after taking note of the relevant facts and circumstances, considered it to be a fit case of granting an anticipatory bail.

The Bench was of the opinion, "Anticipatory bail is a step to protect personal liberty of a person in the eventuality of arrest. Even otherwise, arrest is not a routine and mechanical exercise to be conducted by the Investigating Officer. There should be cogent reasons to arrest a person. The anticipatory bails are considered on various parameters including gravity of offence, tempering with the evidence, the impact on society, chances of repeat offence, etc".

 

CASE TITLE: Anjali Bahuguna and Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.