In the case of Paul v. X, Sabita Paul, the appellant, faced allegations along with her son Supratim Paul for attempting to extort money from the complainant, Smt. X, by threatening to circulate indecent photos. Today, a successful outcome as Sabita Paul’s anticipatory bail is confirmed by the Court, reversing the cancellation by the Division Bench. Justice prevails in the legal battle!
Facts
- The prime accused Supratim Paul, aged 23, is out on bail without any challenge to the bail order.
- The complainant, Smt. X, filed a complaint leading to FIR No. 438 of 2022 against Supratim Paul and his mother Sabita Paul.
- Supratim Paul allegedly took indecent photos of the complainant without her consent and tried to blackmail her for money.
- Supratim Paul demanded money from the complainant under threat of circulating the obscene photos on social media.
- The mother of Supratim Paul, the present appellant, was involved in the conspiracy to extort money from the complainant.
Also Read: State vs. Periyasamy and R. Manoharan: Right of Private Defence
Analysis
- The concept of anticipatory bail was recommended by the 41st Report of the Law Commission and incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The Court must carefully weigh various factors while considering an application for anticipatory bail.
- Grant of bail based on parity is not a guaranteed right but is decided based on the roles of the accused.
- The appellant has been charged under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, and has been granted anticipatory bail.
- The District Judge observed that custodial interrogation was not warranted in this case while granting anticipatory bail to the prime accused.
- The complainant sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail order granted to the appellant citing suppression of material facts, which was allowed.
- The appellant is currently in full compliance with the order of the court.
- Nature and gravity of accusation must be understood before arrest
- Antecedents of the accused and past imprisonment history to be considered
- Possibility of accused fleeing from justice
- Likelihood of accused repeating offenses
- Motive behind accusations should be evaluated
- Impact of anticipatory bail in cases affecting a large number of people
- Evaluation of entire material against the accused by the courts
- Careful consideration in cases where accused is implicated with Sections 34 and 149 of IPC
- Balance needed between fair investigation and prevention of harassment of accused
- Apprehension of witness tampering or threat to complainant to be taken into account
- Frivolity in prosecution to be considered, genuineness of prosecution to be evaluated
- The appellant did not act independently to worsen the situation.
- The prime accused initiated the blackmailing and received hush-money.
- The appellant’s role was only to assist her son in continuing the alleged actions.
- The appellant’s anticipatory bail is confirmed, overturning the cancellation of bail by the Division Bench.
Also Read: Landlord-Tenant Dispute Resolution
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed with certain observations.
- Any pending applications will be considered disposed of.
- The appellant must continue to cooperate in the investigation and trial proceedings.
Also Read: Judicial Directions on Property Dispute Resolution
Case Title: SABITA PAUL Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2024 INSC 245)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001772-001772 / 2024
