Marriage, compromise with accused should not be prescribed as condition for granting bail to accused in sexual offences: Allahabad High Court

Marriage or compromise with the accused should not be kept as a bail condition while granting bail to those accused in sexual offences, the Allahabad High Court ruled (Imran v. State of Uttar Pradesh). .A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said that court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions which are against fair justice."The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused etc. and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 230, in this regard," the order said.The Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bail, the Court added. Conditions for the grant of bail, the Court said, ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory..In this regard, the court also remarked that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be "exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner.".The Court was hearing a bail application of Imran, a taxi driver, who was married and also had a kid. It was submitted by Imran that the victim who was a transgender, used to hire his taxi for the purpose of visiting places and that he was falsely implicated in the present case to extract money from him. It was also informed that there were applications on behalf of the victim as well as from the side of wife of the applicant before the concerned court for lodging First Information Reports (FIRs) against each other which are still pending..On the other hand, the counsel for the informant and Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the bail application and relied upon the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to submit that the first informant was victimized and was forced into sexual relationship. Interestingly, it was not disputed by the AGA that for the first two years, the applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship.."At the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of a prima facie case against the accused, gravity of the allegations, severity of punishment, position and status of the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused," the order said. .After considering the submissions, material available on record, and the period of detention already undergone, the Court noted that there was absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence.Accordingly, bail was granted to the applicant."Prima-facie the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for a period of two years and that there are applications for lodging F.I.Rs. against each other and further prima-facie there is a dispute for exchange of money and also considering that the applicant is in jail since 13.1.2021 and the prevailing situation due to Covid-19 Pandemic, a case of bail is made out. Let the applicant Imran, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.".[Read order]