SC Rejects Dubious Compromise But Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Blackmailing & Sexually Assaulting Woman
The Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a judgment of the Patna High Court, has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of blackmailing and sexually assaulting a woman. The accused sought an interim protection claiming that an alleged compromise was reached at between the parties. The Court, however, rejected the compromise raising suspicion, but allowed his plea on the ground that he has joined the investigation, and a charge-sheet has already been filed.
It is pertinent to note that despite the claims of the accused-petitioner that a joint compromise petition was pending for consideration before the Trial Court, the Sessions Court as well as the High Court declined him pre-arrest bail.
“…there is a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the alleged compromise deed, the same is accordingly outrightly rejected. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, which is now complete and charge-sheet has already been filed, the interim protection granted on 22.10.2021 is made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the Trial Curt on each and every date of hearing and in case he absents from appearing, it will be taken as a misuse of the concession of bail”, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta observed in the matter.
AOR Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay appeared for the petitioner and AOR Samir Ali Khan appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner in the present matter sought an anticipatory bail for offences under Section 354(D), 420, 376 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The allegations are that the petitioner intoxicated the prosecutrix and took her nude photographs. Thereafter, he started blackmailing her and extorted Rs.4,50,000/- besides sexually assaulting her several times.
He had also allegedly threatened the prosecutrix that he will make her nude photographs viral on the social media.
The petitioner, however, claiming a compromise, approached before the Supreme Court, and vide order dated October 22, 2021, he was protected against arrest with a direction to join the investigation and cooperate with the same.
Meanwhile, the prosecutrix had sent a letter to the Registry informing that the alleged compromise deed is a forged document while reiterating the allegations.
Then the Court to ascertain the veracity, directed the petitioner to deposit litigation expenses and a notice was issued to prosecutrix. Although, upon deposition, as per the office report, the prosecutrix did not appear before the Court.
Therefore, the Court directed the Registry to transfer the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the Trial Court for onward payment to the prosecutrix to enable her to seek assistance of private counsel in terms of Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Cause Title: Sukhdeo Mandal v State of Bihar & Anr.
Click here to read/download the Order