Supreme Court Deprecates HC Order Granting Anticipatory Bail To Accused For Offering Compensation To Sexual Harassment Victim

The Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta found the challenged order, granting anticipatory bail to the involved accused, to be against the well-laid down principles of law.

In the instant case, a case was registered against the accused under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Information Technology Act.

The allegations against the accused person were of outraging the modesty of the first informant and, apart from that, making an indecent video viral on social media. Aggrieved by this, the accused/ present respondent approached the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Before the High Court, inter-alia, the respondent submitted that he was ready to cooperate with the case investigation and also undertook to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation to the informant. In its two-page order, the Court asked the accused to deposit the said amount while granting bail. Imperatively, there were no reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order.

“Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of informant as ad interim victim compensation…,” the High Court recorded.

Assailing this order, the State approached the Top Court. At the outset, the bench found such a view taken by the High Court to be unsustainable in law. The Court highlighted that there is not even a whisper as to on what grounds anticipatory bail was allowed by the High Court.

“Merely because the accused is willing to pay some amount as an interim compensation cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail.,” it added.

However, given that the victim had said to accept the above-mentioned amount, the Court did not interfere with the impugned order. Irrespective, before disposing of the appeal, the Court asked its Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the instant Order to the High Court's Registrar (Judicial). The latter was directed to place the same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate directions.

 Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. MD. SUFIYAN., Diary No.- 56 – 2022

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Click here to read the order