Appellant has taken obscene photographs of the neighbor ‘X’ and blackmail to extort money
2. On the basis of complaint filed by Smt. “X” (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), and pursuant to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, West Bengal, FIR No.438 of 2022 dated 07.05.2022 was registered at Police Station, Siliguri, against two accused persons namely, Supratim Paul and his mother Sabita Paul. It is alleged that Supratim Paul, the neighbour of the complainant had discreetly taken photographs of the complainant without her knowledge or consent and that such photographs were obscene, indecent, salacious, and offensive and were threatened to be circulated on the social media platforms. Supratim Paul approached the complainant to extort money, but his demands were not met. Further, Supratim Paul shared the same on the phone of his mother (present appellant) who also in conspiracy with her son tried to blackmail the complainant to extort money. In a nutshell, this is the case set out by the complainant.
Prime accused enlarged on bail
3. The record reveals that the prime accused Supratim aged 23 years stands enlarged on bail and no challenge has been laid to the said bail order.
High Court allowed Anticipatory Bail to the accused and subsequently dismissed on the application filed by the complainant section 439 (2) Cr.P.C
4. It is also a matter of record that the instant appellant i.e. Sabita Paul, the mother of the prime accused moved an application seeking anticipatory bail, firstly before the Sessions Court and thereafter before the High Court which indisputably stood rejected. This was all before the filing of the charge sheet dated 07.05.2022. It is a matter of record that post dismissal of such applications, on 20.01.2023, the instant appellant again applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court which stood allowed vide order dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-9 page 83). The complainant by filing an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 sought cancellation of such an order which stood allowed vide impugned order dated 20.09.2023 on the ground that the instant appellant had suppressed “material facts of” dismissal of her previous attempts to secure anticipatory bail.
Concept of anticipatory bail
6. The concept of anticipatory bail came to be part of the criminal law landscape via the 41st Report of the Law Commission which recommended the inclusion of such a provision, which then stood incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Over the years, many judgments of this Court have considered that a Court must weigh while considering an application for anticipatory bail. In Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal & Ors [(2021) 15 SCC 777], a three-Judge Bench laid down the following factors:
“para. 12”
Present appellant had been charged only under section 120B and section 67A IT Act
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the prime accused, namely, Supratim Paul has been charged under Section 376, 354, 389, 506, and 120-B IPC and he has been granted anticipatory bail. The present appellant has been charged under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. It can be seen that the alleged act of the instant appellant is inextricably bound to the acts of the prime accused. It is alleged that he had secured pictures of the complainant, that were compromising in nature, which then the instant appellant used to extort and to blackmail the complainant.
Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration
9. Grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right. The same is well established. While applying this principle of parity, the Court is required, as was recently observed in Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486] the Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. In the facts, the prime accused who is alleged to have initially conducted the blackmail, whom the complainant is said to have paid ‘hush-money’, has been granted bail and the role played by the instant appellant was only to further the alleged acts of her son. She has not acted independently, to further aggravate the situation.
Cancellation of bail is set aside
10. In that view of the matter, we find it fit to confirm the order dated 12.06.2023 granting anticipatory bail to the instant appellant, setting aside the order of cancellation of bail passed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment and order. We reiterate that the condition upon which this Court granted interim protection, which was that the appellant would extend all cooperation in the investigation and trial still accompanies.
Party
SABITA PAUL … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………….2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No.14053 of 2023) – 2024 INSC 245 – March 22, 2024
Sabita Paul vs. The State of W.B 433012023_2024-03-22
