Trial courts while deciding bail cases should not make remarks that may be treated as conclusions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently said that while deciding bail petitions, trial courts should desist from making remarks that may be treated as final conclusions..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also observed that while deciding on bail, the court passing the order must add a paragraph in its orders or judgment to clarify that "nothing expressed in the said order/judgment shall be construed as expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of the case."This is to ensure that the grant or rejection of bail does not create any confusion for the trial court at the time of final disposal of the case, Justice Sharma said. “Similarly, at the time of passing orders in other miscellaneous applications or revision petitions, which may not finally dispose of the case, a similar paragraph may be added in the order/judgment for the above-mentioned reason,” the Court added..Justice Sharma observed that recording such an observation is required since at the preliminary stages, when the investigation is not complete, the concerned judge will not have the advantage of examining the investigation carried out by the prosecution. .The High Court passed these directions while dealing with a plea filed by a woman challenging the anticipatory bail granted to a man whom she had accused of raping her on the false pretext of marriage.While granting anticipatory bail to the accused, an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) had observed that though it was alleged that the accused had refused to marry her, the accused could not have legally married the complainant since she herself was already married.The trial court further remarked that the complainant appeared to be trying to harass the man who was serving in the Indian Army and had clean antecedents..The High Court noted that the ASJ could not have commented on these aspects since it was neither the matter before him nor was the court giving a finding for the purpose of charge..In a detailed order, the High Court also criticised the derogatory language used by the accused in his reply to the woman's plea to cancel the anticipatory bail. Justice Sharma noted that the accused had said that he wanted to marry a ‘virgin’ and ‘faithful girl of his choice’ in order to live a happy married life and that the complainant-woman had used her ‘extremely wicked or villainous designs’ and ‘seductive acts’ to make him propose to her.The judge observed that such inappropriate and derogatory language undermined the dignity of individuals and was beyond the permissible bounds of the language expected in legal pleadings.Justice Sharma emphasised that there is a necessity to refrain from the use of such derogatory and offensive language.“In this regard, this Court is also of the opinion that use of such language in the pleadings goes against the basic minimum standard expected for promoting a gender just environment as has been also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by releasing the ‘Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes’ which aims to assist judges and the legal community in identifying, understating, and combating stereotypes about women which may be used while drafting pleadings as well as orders and judgments," she added. .On an examination of other aspects of the case, the Court, however, upheld the anticipatory bail granted to the accused and disposed of the plea..Advocates Tarun Gupta and Anmol Mishra represented the petitioner woman.Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant appeared for the State.Senior Advocate Nonu S Khera and Advocate Mohd Ahsan Khanji represented the accused..[Read Judgment]