REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 936 of 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8477 of 2021)
SADHNA CHAUDHARY                     APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
 & ANR.        RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. The   appellant   is   the   complainant/victim/
prosecutrix.     She   has   filed   this   appeal   assailing   the
correctness   of   the   judgment   and   order   dated
25.08.2021   passed   by   the   Rajasthan   High   Court,
Bench   at   Jaipur   in   S.B.   Criminal   Misc.   Bail
Application   No.6394   of   2021   (Kanwar   Pal   Singh   Vs.
State   of   Rajasthan),   whereby   the   High   Court   allowed
1

the application for the relief of anticipatory bail under
Section   438   CrPC   in   FIR   No.161   of   2020,   Police
Station­Karni Vihar, Jaipur, under Sections 323, 341,
354, 379 and 376 IPC.
3. As the present case relates to an order granting
anticipatory   bail,   we   are   consciously   referring   to   the
facts   and   the   arguments   in   brief   so   that   none   of   the
parties   are   prejudiced   or   the   Trial   Court   would   be
influenced   by   any   of   the   observations,   which   may   be
made by us in this order.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that, sometimes
in   2018,   when   the   respondent   no.2   was   posted   as   a
Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Jhunjhunu, the
sister  of  the appellant had made a  complaint  against
her   in­laws   at   the   same   police   station.   The
respondent   no.2   had   kept   with   himself,   the   Bank
Pass­book, Marriage Registration Certificate, Marriage
Photographs,   Aadhar   Card   and   Birth   Certificate
relating   to   her   sister   and   had   told   her   to   collect   the
2

same   later.   On   25.09.2018,   when   the   appellant   was
called to collect the papers from the respondent no.2,
and upon her reaching Jhunjhunu, she was informed
that   papers   may   be   collected   from   his   official
residence,   where   she   had   to   compulsorily   go   as   she
had   to   return   to   Jaipur   on   the   same   day.   At   the
residence,   the   respondent   no.2   offered   buttermilk   to
the   appellant,   which   she   claims   to   have   innocently
consumed,   but   apparently   the   same   was   laced   with
drugs   resulting   into   the   appellant   losing   her
consciousness.   When   she   regained   consciousness,
she   found   herself   in   a   very   awkward   situation   and
immediately   realized   that   she   had   been   exploited   by
the   respondent   no.2.   The   respondent   no.2   is   said   to
have   threatened   her   that   he   has   made   videos   and
clicked   photographs   in   obscene   and   objectionable
conditions   on   his   mobile   and   if   she   did   not   continue
to   accede   to   his   demands   and   commands,   he   would
make everything public. 
3

5. The  exploitation  of  the  appellant  is  said  to  have
continued   for   almost   two   years.   In   May,   2020,
respondent   no.2   came   to   her   residence,   where   she
resides  with  her   husband   and  children.  He   forcefully
took   her   in   his   Jeep   to   some   unknown   place,
physically   assaulted   her,   snatched   away   her   mobile,
then after driving to various places at some point his
wife and children arrived and they also assaulted her,
as   a   result   of   which,   she   became   unconscious.   She
was   saved   by   the   patrolling   vehicle   of   the   Police
department,  whereafter  she lodged the FIR No.161 of
2020   on   01.06.2020   for   the   offences   punishable
under   Sections   376,   323,   341,   354   and   379   IPC   at
the   Karni   Vihar   Police   Station,   Jaipur.   The   FIR   was
only   about   that   day’s   incident,   however,   later   on,
when the appellant recovered, she narrated the whole
story in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.
6. Further,   the   case   of   the   appellant   is   that
respondent   no.2   misusing   his   official   position   got   a
false   report   registered   through   his   wife   against   the
4

appellant   five   days   later   on   05.06.2020,   which   was
registered   as   FIR   No.0234   of   2020,   Police   Station­
Jhotwara,   Jaipur.   It   is   also   submitted   that   the   said
FIR   after   investigation   has   been   found   to   be
containing   completely  false  and  incorrect  facts  and   a
closure   report   has   already   been   submitted.   However,
insofar   as   the   FIR   lodged   by   the   appellant   is
concerned,   as   the   respondent   no.2   has   not   been
taken   into   custody,   he   is   not   co­operating   with   the
investigation and several articles and mobiles need to
be   recovered   from   him   for   a   fair   and   proper
investigation.  It is also necessary to have control over
the obscene videos and photographs of the appellant,
as   such   his   judicial   custody   is   required   considering
the seriousness of the allegations. 
7. The   order   of   anticipatory   bail,   which   has   been
passed   in   a   cursory   manner   literally   treating   the
averments   contained   in   the   petition   before   the   High
Court to be correct needs to be set aside. It is also the
case of the appellant that respondent no.2 has further
5

misused   his   official   position   in  order  to   lodge  several
false   complaints   not   only   against   the   appellant   but
her   family   members   also   only   in   order   to   pressurize
her to withdraw the present FIR.
8. The   State­respondent   has   filed   a   detailed
counter­affidavit.  Relevant paragraph nos.5 to 10 are
relevant which read as follows:
“5 .   It   is   most   respectfully   submitted   that   the
investigation   in   the   FIR   161/2020   has
unearthed   substantial   evidence   which   proves
that Accused/Respondent No. 2, who is himself
a   police   officer,   is   guilty   of   offences   under
Sections   323,   341,   354,   504,   379,   376   of   IPC,
as   detailed   in   the   Factual   Report   dated
23.11.2021.
6.     Further,   on   05.06.2020,   another   FIR   No.
234/2020 was registered at the instance of one
Smt Usha Kanwar, i.e, wife of Respondents No.
2,   at   the   Police   Station   Jhotwara,   Jaipur   West,
under   Sections   143,323,341,   384,   504,   379,
452,   of   the   IPC.   After   detailed   investigation,   it
was   found   that   the   said   FIR   was   registered   on
the   basis   of   false   information   and   no   offence
was   made   out   against   the   Petitioner   and   any
members   of   her   family.   As   such,   Final   Report
under   Section   173   CrPC   already   been   filed   on
27.09.2021   before   the   court   of   learned   a   CJM
Class­   3   Jaipur   City,   wherein   next   date   of
hearing is fixed as 25.01.2022.
A   true   translate   copy   of   the   Factual   Report
dated   25.11.2021   detailing   the   findings   of   the
6

investigation and its status is annexed herewith
and  marked   as   Annexure­R2   (Page   No.   45  to
99).
7.   In   addition   to   the   facts   stated   in   the   two
Factual   Reports   above,   it   is   most   respectfully
submitted   that   the   Accused/Respondent   No.   2
is   a   police   officer   who   is   well   versed   with   the
process   of   law   and   an   insider   to   law
enforcement   machinery   in   the   State   of
Rajasthan,   therefore,   it   is   even   more   important
that   the   investigation   proceed   without   the
Accused/Respondent   No.   2   being   under   the
protection of the Hon’ble Court.
8.   Further,   the   fact   unearthed   in   the
investigation   till   now   detailed   in   the   above   two
Factual   Reports   corroborate   and   prove   the
allegations   made   by   the   Petitioner.   In   addition,
the   FR   in   FIR   234/2020   details   how   a   false
case   was   sought   to   be   created   against   the
Petitioner and her family.
9.   It   is   most   respectfully   submitted   that   on   the
strength   of   facts   laid   out   above,   the   answering
Respondent   seeks   cancellation   of   the
anticipatory   bail   granted   on
Accused/Respondent   No.   2.   In   particular,   it   is
imperative   that   all   efforts   be     made   to   find   the
obscene photographs, videos, mobile phone and
clothes   bag   of   the   victim   in   addition   to   other
pieces of evidence that the Accused/Respondent
No.2   alone   will   have   knowledge   of.   It   may   be
noted   that   the   Accused/Respondent   No.   2   has
not   fully   cooperated   with   the   investigation   as
noted in the Factual Report dated 23.11.2021.
10. In light  of the above submissions, it is most
respectfully   prayed   before   this   Hon’ble   Court
that   impugned   order   granting   anticipatory   bail
Respondent   No.   2   be   set   aside   and   the
7

Respondent­State   be   at   liberty   to   proceed   with
the   investigation   as   it   sees   fit,   without   the
accused   being   under   any   protection   from   this
Hon’ble Court.”
9. In the aforesaid counter affidavit, the Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (West), Jaipur
duly   authorized   by   the   State   of   Rajasthan,   who   filed
the   affidavit,   has   stated   in   paragraph   5   that
substantial   evidence   has   been   unearthed   which
proves   that   the   respondent   no.2,   who   is   a   police
officer,   is   guilty   of   the   offences,   details   whereof   are
mentioned in the report dated 23.11.2021.
10. In   paragraph   6,   it   has   been   stated   that
respondent no.2 managed to get a false report lodged
against   the   appellant   registered   as   FIR   No.234   of
2020, which after detailed investigation was found to
be   based   on   false   information   and   no   offence   was
made   out   against   the   appellant   or   her   family
members. The final report under Section 173(2) CrPC
has already been submitted on 27.09.2021.
8

11. In   paragraph   7,   it   is   stated   that   the   police
officer, who is well­versed in the process of law and a
part   of   the   law   enforcement   machinery,   it   is   all   the
more   important   that   the   investigation   must   proceed
without   the   respondent   no.2   being   under   the
protection of this Court.
12. In   paragraph   9,   it   is   stated   that   order   for
granting   anticipatory   bail   needs   to   be   cancelled   in
particular   for   the   reason   that   efforts   are   still   on   to
recover   the   obscene   photographs,   videos,   mobile­
phone and the bag of clothes of the victim in addition
to other pieces of evidence from the respondent no.2,
who alone would be having knowledge of the same. It
is  also   specifically   stated   in  paragraph   9  that  he   has
not   fully   cooperated   with   the   investigation   as   is
apparent from the factual report dated 23.11.2021.
13. On the other hand, respondent no.2 has sought
to   justify   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court.
According   to   the   learned   counsel,   the   appellant   is
exploiting   the   respondent   no.2   and   his   family
9

members,   the   reasons   given   by   the   High   Court   while
passing   the   order   of   anticipatory   bail   is   based   on
legally admissible facts and the circumstances placed
before   the   High   Court.   He   also   submitted   that   once
the High Court has exercised its discretion, this Court
may not interfere with the same.   It is also submitted
that   other   FIR’s   registered   against   the   appellant   and
her   relatives   is   by   third   persons/strangers   who   are
victims of extortion by the appellant and her relatives.
They have nothing to do with the respondent no.2.
14.     Law   on   the   applicability   or   grant   of   anticipatory
bail   under   section   438   Cr.P.C.   may   be   briefly
summarised as under: ­
14.1. In   Shri   Gurbaksh   Singh   Sibbia   and   Others   v.
State   of   Punjab 1
,   a   Constitution   Bench   of   this
Court,   Chief   Justice   Y.V.   Chandrachud,
speaking for the Court dealt with in detail on the
considerations for grant of anticipatory bail. 
1  (1980) 2 SCC 565
10

14.2.  In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of
Maharashtra   and   Others 2
;   this   Court   relying
upon   the   Constitution   Bench   judgment   in   Shri
Gurbaksh   Singh   Sibbia   laid   down   in   paragraph
112   of   the   report   the   following   factors   and
parameters   to   be   considered   while   dealing   with
an application for anticipatory bail:
“(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and
the   exact   role   of   the   accused   must   be   properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii)   The   antecedents   of   the   applicant   including
the   fact   as   to   whether   the   accused   has
previously   undergone   imprisonment   on
conviction   by   a   court   in   respect   of   any
cognizable offence;
(iii)   The   possibility   of   the   applicant   to   flee   from
justice;
(iv)   The   possibility   of   the  accused’s   likelihood   to
repeat similar or other offences;
(v)   Where   the   accusations   have   been   made   only
with   the   object   of   injuring   or   humiliating   the
applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi)   Impact   of   grant   of   anticipatory   bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting
a very large number of people;
(vii)   The   courts   must   evaluate   the   entire
available   material   against   the   accused   very
carefully.   The   court   must   also   clearly
comprehend the exact role of the accused in the
case.   The   cases   in   which   the   accused   is
implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149
of   the   Penal   Code,   1860   the   court   should
consider   with   even   greater   care   and   caution
2   (2011) 1 SCC 694
11

because over­implication in the cases is a matter
of common knowledge and concern;
(viii)   While   considering   the   prayer   for   grant   of
anticipatory   bail,   a   balance   has   to   be   struck
between   two   factors,   namely,   no   prejudice
should   be   caused   to   the   free,   fair   and   full
investigation   and   there   should   be   prevention   of
harassment,   humiliation   and   unjustified
detention of the accused;
(ix)   The   court   to   consider   reasonable
apprehension   of   tampering   of   the   witnesses   or
apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x)   Frivolity   in   prosecution   should   always   be
considered   and   it   is   only   the   element   of
genuineness that shall have to  be considered in
the   matter   of   grant   of   bail   and   in   the   event   of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
14.3.   In   yet   another   recent   Constitution   Bench
judgment   in   the   case   of   Sushila   Aggarwal   and
Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another 3
,
in paragraph 85 of the report   Justice Ravindra
Bhatt  laid down the guiding principles in dealing
with applications under Section 438. 
Justice   M.R.   Shah   had   authored   a   separate
opinion.   Justice   Arun   Misra,   Justice   Indira
Banerjee and Justice Vineet Saran  agreed with
both   the   opinions.   The   concluding   guiding
3   (2020) 5 SCC 1
12

factors stated in paragraphs 92, 92.1 to 92.9 are
reproduced hereunder: 
“92.   This   Court,   in   the   light   of   the   above
discussion   in   the   two   judgments,   and   in
the   light   of   the   answers   to   the   reference,
hereby   clarifies   that   the   following   need   to
be   kept   in   mind   by   courts,   dealing   with
applications under Section 438 CrPC.
92.1.   Consistent   with   the   judgment
in   Shri   Gurbaksh   Singh   Sibbia   and
others   v.   State   of   Punjab 4
,   when   a
person   complains   of   apprehension   of
arrest   and   approaches   for   order,   the
application should be based on concrete
facts   (and   not   vague   or   general
allegations)   relatable   to   one   or   other
specific   offence.   The   application   seeking
anticipatory   bail   should   contain   bare
essential   facts   relating   to   the   offence,
and   why   the   applicant   reasonably
apprehends arrest, as well as his side of
the   story.   These   are   essential   for   the
court   which   should   consider   his
application,   to   evaluate   the   threat   or
apprehension,   its   gravity   or   seriousness
and the appropriateness of any condition
that   may   have   to   be   imposed.   It   is   not
essential   that   an   application   should   be
moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be
moved   earlier,   so   long   as   the   facts   are
clear   and   there   is   reasonable   basis   for
apprehending arrest.
92.2.   It   may   be   advisable   for   the   court,
which is approached with   an application
under   Section   438 ,   depending   on   the
seriousness   of   the   threat   (of   arrest)   to
issue notice to the public prosecutor and
4   (1980) 2 SCC 565
13

obtain   facts,   even   while   granting   limited
interim anticipatory bail.
92.3.   Nothing   in   Section   438   Cr.   PC,
compels   or   obliges   courts   to   impose
conditions   limiting   relief   in   terms   of
time,   or   upon   filing   of   FIR,   or   recording
of   statement   of   any   witness,   by   the
police,   during   investigation   or   inquiry,
etc. While considering an application (for
grant   of   anticipatory   bail)   the   court   has
to consider the nature of the offence, the
role   of   the   person,   the   likelihood   of   his
influencing   the   course   of   investigation,
or   tampering   with   evidence   (including
intimidating   witnesses),   likelihood   of
fleeing   justice   (such   as   leaving   the
country),   etc.   The   courts   would   be
justified   –   and   ought   to   impose
conditions   spelt   out   in   Section   437   (3),
Cr.P.C. [by virtue of   Section 438   (2)]. The
need   to   impose   other   restrictive
conditions, would have to be judged on a
case­by­case basis, and depending upon
the   materials   produced   by   the   state   or
the investigating agency. Such special or
other   restrictive   conditions   may   be
imposed if the case or cases warrant, but
should   not   be   imposed   in   a   routine
manner,   in   all   cases.   Likewise,
conditions   which   limit   the   grant   of
anticipatory  bail may  be granted,  if  they
are   required   in   the   facts   of   any   case   or
cases;  however,  such  limiting   conditions
may not be invariably imposed.
92.4.   Courts   ought   to   be   generally
guided   by   considerations   such   as   the
nature   and   gravity   of   the   offences,   the
role   attributed   to   the   applicant,   and   the
facts   of   the   case,   while   considering
whether   to   grant   anticipatory   bail,   or
refuse   it.   Whether   to   grant   or   not   is   a
14

matter   of   discretion;   equally   whether
and if so, what kind of special conditions
are   to   be   imposed   (or   not   imposed)   are
dependent   on   facts   of   the   case,   and
subject to the discretion of the court.
92.5.   Anticipatory   bail   granted   can,
depending on the conduct and behaviour
of   the   accused,   continue   after   filing   of
the charge­sheet till end of trial.
92.6.   An   order   of   anticipatory   bail
should not be “blanket” in the sense that
it   should   not   enable   the   accused   to
commit   further   offences   and   claim   relief
of   indefinite   protection   from   arrest.   It
should   be   confined   to   the   offence   or
incident,   for   which   apprehension   of
arrest  is  sought,  in  relation   to  a specific
incident. It cannot operate in respect of a
future incident that involves commission
of an offence.
92.7.   An   order   of   anticipatory   bail   does
not   in   any   manner   limit   or   restrict   the
rights   or   duties   of   the   police   or
investigating   agency,   to   investigate   into
the   charges   against   the   person   who
seeks and is granted pre arrest bail.
92.8.   The   observations   in   Sibbia
regarding   “limited   custody”   or   “deemed
custody” to facilitate the requirements of
the   investigative   authority,   would   be
sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the
provisions   of   Section   27 ,   in   the   event   of
recovery   of   an   article,   or   discovery   of   a
fact,   which   is   relatable   to   a   statement
made   during   su ch   event   (i.e   deemed
custody).   In   such   event,   there   is   no
question   (or   necessity)   of   asking
the   accused  to  separately  surrender  and
15

seek   regular   bail.   Sibbia   (supra)   had
observed that 
“if   and   when   the   occasion   arises,   it
may be possible for the prosecution to
claim   the   benefit   of   Section   27   of   the
Evidence   Act   in   regard   to   a   discovery
of   facts   made   in   pursuance   of
information   supplied   by   a   person
released   on   bail   by   invoking   the
principle stated by this Court in   State
of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya 5
.”
92.9.   It   is   open   to   the   police   or   the
investigating   agency   to   move   the   court
concerned,   which   grants   anticipatory
bail, for a direction under   Section 439   (2)
to   arrest   the   accused,   in   the   event   of
violation   of   any   term,   such   as
absconding,   non   cooperating   during
investigation,   evasion,   intimidation   or
inducement   to   witnesses   with   a   view   to
influence outcome of the investigation or
trial, etc. ”
15. Having considered the submissions, the material
on record, in particular the stand taken by the State­
respondent no.1 in their counter affidavit, and the law
on the grant or   refusal  of anticipatory   bail, we are of
the   view   that   considering   the   seriousness   of   the
offences   alleged,   this   was   not   a   fit   case   for   grant   of
5  AIR 1960 SC 1125
16

anticipatory   bail,   when   according   to   the   State,
recoveries are yet to be made and the respondent no.2
has not extended full cooperation in the investigation.
16. The   Respondent   no.2   is   not   a   common   man,
being a law­abiding person. His adherence to law has
to   be   more   stringent   than   expected   in   general   by   a
common man, which apparently, he failed to observe. 
17. We   also   feel   that   High   Court   has   proceeded   to
accept   the   case   as   set   up   by   the   respondent   no.2   in
his petition to be true and on that basis proceeded to
grant anticipatory bail. The High Court in our opinion
committed an error.
18. Accordingly,   the   appeal   deserves   to   be   allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of the High Court
dated   25.08.2021   is   set   aside   and   the   application
under Section 438 CrPC filed by the respondent no.2
is dismissed.
17

19. We grant two weeks’ time to the respondent no.2
to   surrender,   failing   which,   the   Investigating   Agency
would   be   at   liberty   to   arrest   him   forthwith   and
proceed   with   the   investigation   in   a   fair   and
reasonable manner as per law.
20. The  observations made hereinabove  are  only  for
disposal   of   the   appeal.     If   regular   bail   application   is
filed,   it   may   be   considered   on   its   own   merits   in
accordance with law without being influenced by any
of the observations made above.
21. The appeal stands allowed as above.
…………..........................J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
………….........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI
JULY 12, 2022. 
18