Case title: Mamta Kaur Vs. State of Punjab
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
Date: January 09, 2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
INTRODUCTION
In the case of Mamta Kaur vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has given rulings on anticipatory bail under charges laid under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In 2055, the court overruled the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s earlier ruling, refusing the application for anticipatory bail of the accused here.
Background Facts
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered as FIR No. 13, dated 14.02.2023, in the police station of Gharinda, District-Amritsar. The accused was charged by the law as contemplated under Section 306 IPC, which pertain to abetments to suicide. Her attempts began in the Punjab and Haryana High Court with the anticipatory bail, or CRM-M-No. 17439 of 2023, which was summed up in a different tune as it was decided through the judgment dated 17.04.2023 that her pleas were not entertained in her favor of anticipatory bail.
Displeased with the judgment of the High Court, the appellant moved to the Supreme Court of India for rectifying the decision given by higher authorities rejecting her anticipatory bail application. The next order passed by the Supreme Court was an interim one dated 21.10.2024, which was of much greater importance than others in the investigation process.
ISSUE
Whether an anticipatory bail is made available to accused relating FIR lodged under Section 306 IPC abetment to suicide and the IO has concluded that no further custodial interrogation is necessary?
LEGAL PROVISION
Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 This section primarily deals with punishment of abetment of suicide for a term that may extend to 10 years.
Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 This provision relates to the direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest
Article 136 of the Constitution of India This article empowers the Apex Court to grant (SLP) Special Leave to appeal from any previously passed judgment or decree by any lower court or tribunal.
ARGUMENTS:
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT
In terms of the appellant, the most substantial submission of Mamta Kaur was right to anticipatory bail, stating her continuous availability with the investigating authorities as the basis of her plea. The counsel for the defense in all likelihood argued that she had so far demonstrated that she had been more than eager to be associated with the legitimized investigation and that she had been careful to avoid and prevent problems with the law.
In other implications, probably appellant would go ahead, mentioning in all possible submissions that there had been injury caused to this section and not others under Section 306 IPC, so the circumstances and evidence require due reflection before curtailing personal liberty through arrest. They have to argue that since the investigation was already pretty far along with her cooperation, how could she be denied that section from arrest when all offense is absent in reality? The impossibility of preserving liberty and evidence is also incredible.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
From the perspective of the people of the State of Punjab, they had the stance against anticipatory bail initially on account of the formation of a serious offense under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution also must have argued on the point that in a case of abetment to suicide, one would have needed investigation that was detailed and the chain of events leading to suicide; it is questioning in every possible manner everything. The primary leaning of the State which was responsible for denying anticipatory bail by the High Court would be that the accused person should be without the defense of anticipatory bail but available for questioning.
However, as the matter came on: respondent-State counsel was fair enough to say that the appellant had cooperation in investigating the matter. This change in stance indicates while the State reserved to itself the powers of investigating thoroughly, yet it realized that the immediate necessity for custodial interrogation lay diminishing because the appellant became cooperative and the investigation made progress.
JUDGMENT:
The resolution provided for by the Supreme Court has finally found a way to satisfy both sides of the divide- by giving the accused refuge against arrest as well as by working out certain safeguard conditions for interests in the investigation. This has been the conspicuous shift of a new India to the evolving judiciary and policing concept on the caring for personal liberty inside the spectrum of criminal investigations, particularly in cases sharing the cooperation of the accused with investigators. This judgment sets a precedent in the achievement of balancing between rights and needs that are bound to be given expression in the context of criminal investigations, especially under serious allegation as provided under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
CONCLUSION
It is very useful to generate important guidance in many similar anticipatory bail cases. Besides that the cooperation during the investigation by him and custody interrogation were not necessary to complete the remaining investigation.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: DIYAA GOSWAMI
