Case- Imran V. State of U. P. A single judge Bench of justice Saurabh shyam Shamshery ruled that The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of “fair justice” to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another.
Further,The Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bailThe court also remarked that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be “exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner.”
The Court issued the following guidelines:
1.Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim.
2.Where there might be a potential threat of harassment of the victim,after calling for reports from the police, the nature of protection shall be separately considered and appropriate order made, in addition to a direction to the accused not to make any contact with the victim;
3.In all cases where bail is granted, the complainant should immediately be informed that the accused has been granted bail and a copy of the bail order made over to him/her within two days
4.The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender-related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (o towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction;
5.Judges especially should not use any words, spoken or written, that would undermine or shake the confidence of the survivor