High Court Denies Bail Over Translated FIR Omission
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a Karnal man accused of stalking and sexually harassing a 21-year-old woman, after finding that the translated version of the FIR submitted by the accused omitted a crucial allegation. Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled that the omission was not a minor discrepancy but a material suppression that diluted the prosecution's case and disentitled the petitioner from discretionary relief.
Details of the Allegations
The case stems from an FIR registered on May 14 at Nissing police station in Karnal district under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complainant alleged that on May 12, while she was on her way to a temple, the petitioner followed her, stepped on her slipper from behind, touched her shoulder and private parts, and used abusive language when she objected. The prosecution further claimed that the petitioner had been following her for some time, making improper gestures, and later roaming around her house, causing fear. Her statement was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, where she reiterated the allegations.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that the FIR was filed after a two-day delay and was a “calculated counter-blast” intended to preempt and neutralize him. He also alleged false implication due to enmity between the families. However, the High Court found that the translated version of the FIR submitted by the petitioner had materially altered the nature of the allegations.
Court's Observations on Translation
Justice Moudgil noted that the original FIR specifically alleged that the accused “put his foot on her slipper from behind, touched her shoulder and private parts.” In contrast, the petitioner's translated version omitted the allegation regarding touching of private parts and replaced it with a vague narration that he “touched her shoulder and touched her...” The Bench observed that the petition and grounds repeatedly portrayed the case as involving only touching of the shoulder, improper language, and stalking, while stressing the absence of medical evidence and independent witnesses.
“The omission is not a minor linguistic discrepancy but concerns a material accusation forming the very foundation of the offences alleged against the petitioner,” Justice Moudgil asserted. The Court added that had the complete allegation been fairly disclosed, it would have been clear that the complainant’s case was not confined to touching of the shoulder or passing remarks, but included a specific allegation of physical contact with her private parts.
Duty of Full Disclosure
The Bench observed that a litigant seeking the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is under a duty to make a full, fair, and candid disclosure of all material facts. The Court held that the petitioner had relied on a “self-serving translation” which concealed a crucial allegation. The concealment struck at the root of the petitioner’s bona fides, and he had “deliberately withheld and suppressed” a material part of the allegations in the FIR, amounting to misrepresentation of the record.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to approach the Court with clean hands, the High Court dismissed the petition. The ruling underscores the importance of accurate translations in legal proceedings and the expectation that petitioners seeking anticipatory bail must present the case transparently.
