Sabita Paul vs. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court, March 22, 2024]
Background
This case arose from allegations that Supratim Paul, the son of Sabita Paul, had blackmailed and threatened a woman using obscene photographs. He was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 389 (putting person in fear of accusation of offence in order to commit extortion), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sabita Paul, the mother, was implicated as a co-conspirator under Section 120-B IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for allegedly aiding her son in the commission of these offences.
Legal Proceedings
Supratim Paul, the principal accused, was granted anticipatory bail.
Sabita Paul initially applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. After the filing of the charge sheet, she reapplied and was granted anticipatory bail by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The complainant challenged the grant of anticipatory bail to Sabita Paul under Section 439(2) CrPC, leading to its cancellation by the High Court on grounds of suppression of material facts regarding her earlier bail applications.
Sabita Paul appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Issues
Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to Sabita Paul was justified, especially in light of the bail already granted to her son, the principal accused.
The extent to which the principle of parity (granting bail to similarly placed accused) applies, and whether the role of the accused must be independently assessed.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that while parity is a relevant factor in bail jurisprudence, it is not an absolute right. The Court must focus on the specific role attributed to the accused whose bail is under consideration. In this case, the Court noted:
The mother (Sabita Paul) had not acted independently to aggravate the situation but was alleged to have furthered the acts of her son.
The allegations against her were not of direct involvement in the primary offences but of conspiracy and facilitation.
The principal accused (her son) had already been granted anticipatory bail, and the mother’s role was secondary and not shown to be more culpable.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order cancelling Sabita Paul’s anticipatory bail and confirmed the earlier order granting her such relief. The Court clarified that the focus in bail matters should be on the specific role and degree of involvement of each accused, not merely on the principle of parity.
Significance
This judgment reiterates that the grant of bail based on parity is not a matter of right and that courts must carefully evaluate the individual role and conduct of each accused. The decision also emphasizes judicial restraint in cancelling bail unless there are compelling reasons, such as material suppression or evidence of misuse of liberty.
Citation:
Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 14053 of 2023, Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 245, Judgment dated March 22, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments