The Gauhati High Court recently addressed a critical aspect of anticipatory bail provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, specifically focusing on Section 482(4). This section outlines the circumstances under which anticipatory bail cannot be granted, notably in cases involving serious offenses such as rape and gang rape. The Court's interpretation of the conjunction "and" in this context has significant implications for the application of anticipatory bail in such cases.
Context and Legal Background
Section 482(4) of the BNSS, 2023, stipulates that anticipatory bail provisions do not apply to individuals accused of offenses under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Section 65 pertains to the offense of rape of a woman aged below 16 years, while Section 70(2) addresses the offense of gang rape of a woman under the age of 18 years. The wording of Section 482(4) suggests that the embargo on anticipatory bail applies only if a person is accused of both offenses simultaneously.
However, the language used—"under Section 65 and sub-Section (2) of Section 70"—raised interpretational questions. The conjunction "and" could imply that both offenses must be applicable to bar anticipatory bail. Given the distinct nature of these offenses and the specific age criteria involved, it seemed unlikely that an individual would be accused of both offenses concurrently.
Court's Interpretation
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, in a single-judge bench, examined this issue and concluded that the conjunction "and" in Section 482(4) should be read as "or." This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent anticipatory bail in cases involving serious sexual offenses, irrespective of whether both specific sections are invoked simultaneously.
The Court emphasized that the primary objective of Section 482(4) is to safeguard the integrity of the legal process and to ensure that individuals accused of heinous crimes do not evade justice through anticipatory bail. By interpreting "and" as "or," the Court ensured that the provision effectively applies to any individual accused under either Section 65 or Section 70(2), thereby upholding the legislative intent.
Case Details
The clarification arose during the hearing of an anticipatory bail application filed by four accused individuals apprehending arrest in connection with a case under various sections of the BNS, including Sections 61(2), 137(2), 303(2), 65(1), and 308(2). The allegations involved the kidnapping of a minor girl, theft, and sexual assault. The petitioners contended that the victim was of legal age and had left voluntarily, and that the charges were fabricated.
Despite these arguments, the Court found that the nature of the allegations, particularly the serious sexual offenses involved, necessitated a strict interpretation of Section 482(4). The Court's decision reinforced the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving grave offenses, as specified under the BNSS.
Implications of the Court's Ruling
This ruling has significant implications for the application of anticipatory bail provisions under the BNSS. By interpreting "and" as "or," the Court expanded the scope of offenses that automatically disqualify an individual from seeking anticipatory bail. This interpretation ensures that the legal system does not inadvertently provide relief to individuals accused of serious crimes, thereby maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
Moreover, the decision underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting legislative provisions to align with their intended purpose. In this case, the Court's interpretation of Section 482(4) reflects a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that individuals accused of heinous crimes are not prematurely granted bail.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court's clarification on the interpretation of Section 482(4) of the BNSS, 2023, serves as a critical precedent in the application of anticipatory bail provisions in cases involving serious sexual offenses. By reading "and" as "or," the Court ensured that the provision effectively applies to individuals accused under either Section 65 or Section 70(2), thereby upholding the legislative intent and maintaining the integrity of the justice system. This decision reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving grave offenses, ensuring that justice is served and the rights of victims are protected.
 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Gauhati High Court's Clarification){kind=link}
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.