In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has granted anticipatory bail to Mamta Kaur in Criminal Appeal No. [Pending Allotment], arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14647/2024, related to FIR No. 13 dated February 14, 2023. The case was registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide). The bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered the judgment on January 9, 2025.
Background of the Case
Mamta Kaur, the appellant, was denied anticipatory bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in April 2023 in CRM-M No. 17439 of 2023. The FIR alleged her involvement in abetment to suicide, an offense under Section 306 IPC. Following the rejection, Kaur moved the Supreme Court, seeking relief.
In its interim orders in October 2024, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to cooperate with the investigation. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer submitted that custodial interrogation of the appellant was no longer required, bolstering the appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail.
Key Legal Issues
1. Right to Anticipatory Bail: Whether the appellant deserved protection from arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Custodial Interrogation: Whether the absence of need for custodial interrogation sufficed to grant anticipatory bail.
3. Judicial Oversight: Conditions under which anticipatory bail may be canceled if misused.
Observations by the Court
The Court noted that the appellant had complied with investigative requirements as per its October 2024 orders. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, delivering the judgment, observed:
“Since the respondent-State itself acknowledges that no further custodial interrogation is required, the arrest of the appellant in this case is unwarranted at this stage.”
The bench also clarified the respondent’s right to seek cancellation of bail if conditions imposed by the Trial Court were violated.
Decision
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of her arrest, Kaur should be released on terms and conditions to be determined by the Trial Court. The judgment emphasized the respondent-State’s liberty to move for bail cancellation if any breach occurred.
Representation
– For the Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Ghai (via video conferencing) and Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR.
– For the Respondent: Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR.
