SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Ms. X – Appellant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 822-823 of 2023 (Arising Out of Petitions For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 11104-11105 of 2022)
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354, 354-B, 506 and 376 – Grant of anticipatory bail – Challenge as to – Allegation of rape – While deciding application for bail, court ought to refrain from undertaking detailed analysis of evidence – Self-imposed restraint on delving deep into analysis of evidence at that stage is to prevent any prejudice to case set up by prosecution or defence likely to be taken by accused and to keep all aspects of matter open till trial is concluded – While considering application for grant of anticipatory bail court has to consider nature of offence, role of person, likelihood of his influencing course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice – In present case, nature and gravity of alleged offence has been disregarded – So has financial stature, position and standing of accused vis-à-vis appellant/prosecutrix been ignored – There was sufficient material in FIR that would prima facie attract provision of Section 376, IPC – Impugned orders granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2/accused, quashed and set aside. (Paras 11.1, 16, 22 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellant/prosecutrix is a Model by profession. Appellant/prosecutrix, who claims to have been exposed to the horrors of the notorious casting couch syndrome, at the hands of the respondent No.2/accused herein, is aggrieved by the orders passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in exercise of its Criminal Appellate jurisdiction allowing the anticipatory bail application filed by respondent No.2/accused.
Findings of Court:
Charge-sheet has already been filed in the case. If respondent No.2/accused moves application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the appropriate Court, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant/prosecutrix, who claims to have been exposed to the horrors of the notorious casting couch syndrome, at the hands of the respondent No.2/accused herein, is aggrieved by the orders dated 21st September, 20221[First Impugned Order.] and 07th October, 20222[Second Impugned Order.], passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in exercise of its Criminal Appellate jurisdiction allowing the anticipatory bail application3[Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2594 of 2022.] filed by the respondent No.2/accused in connection with FIR4[CR FIR No. 915 of 2022 registered on 06th August, 2022.] filed by her with the MIDC Police Station, Mumbai. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 354, 354-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 5[For short ‘the IPC’]. Subsequently, on the supplementary statement of the appellant/prosecutrix being recorded, offence under Section 376 was added to the subject FIR. By the first impugned order, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent No. 2/accused as an interim measure subject to certain conditions and on 7th October 2022, confirmed the said order.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The facts of the case as are relevant for deciding the present appeals are briefly stated:-
3.1 The appellant/prosecutrix is a Model by profession. She filed a complaint with P.S. MIDC, Mumbai against the respondent No.2/accused in the late hours of 5th August, 2022, when she dialled ‘100’ to call the police alleging that the respondent No.2/accused, a businessman, who lured her under the garb of offering her some modelling assignments and then forced himself upon her and raped her in a hotel room where she was staying.
3.2 The relevant portion of the appellant’s statement recorded in the early hours of 06th August, 2022 at the MIDC Police Station, Mumbai is extracted hereinbelow :-
“……Thereafter we discussed about our work, thereafter Jignesh told me that he wants to talk with me some personal therefore he told me to go in room. Then as Jignesh is going to give me job therefore at about 11.15 pm in the night I took him in the hotel room. Then I asked him water but he refused. Then he told me that, "xxx tu jo field me kaam karti hai, wo field me to tumhe pata hai kya kya karna padta hai" (xxx you know that, what things needs to do in the field you are working), at that time I told him to speak clearly. Then he told me that, "xxx kuchh pane ke liye kuchh khona padata hai" (xxx one has to sacrifice something to get something). At that time I told him, that I have cleared you about the same on very first day. At that time he told me that, you have to compromise with me, I have good contacts. At that time I clearly refused him. Thereafter he got up from bed and pushed me on bed and he touched my breast and backside. Then I started shouting and then he held my neck and threatened to kill me and then he opened his shirt buttons and he tried to open my clothes. In between my maxi was torn near the neck and breast and then he took out his private part with his hand and he started doing intimacy with me and then I pushed him forcibly and went out from the room and then I got down to the reception from staircase and called the police on 100 number……………”
3.3 Thereafter, in the evening of 06th August, 2022 itself, a supplementary statement of the appellant/prosecutrix was recorded, relevant portion whereof is as under :-
“……Then he got up from the bed and pushed me on the bed by pushing me hard. This time he touched my chest and my rear and lifted my dress which I was wearing. As I screamed and begged him not to do this to me, he grabbed me by the throat and threatened to kill me. At that time my whole body was shivering, I was completely scared, I had no idea. He then unbuttoned his shirt, removed his pants and tried to remove my clothes. There was a tussle between us and my maxi was torn near my neck and near my chest. During the tussle, he pulled my knicker down and pulled out
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT Of Delhi) And Another (2018) 12 SCC 129 [Para 13] – Relied
Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad And Another (2005) 7 SCC 326 [Para 13] – Relied
Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia And Another (2020) 2 SCC 118 [Para 13] – Relied.
Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2009) 14 SCC 286 [Para 13] – Relied.
Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2014) 16 SCC 508 [Para 13] – Relied.
Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra And Others (2005) 3 SCC 143 [Para 13] – Relied.
Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Another (2019) 17 SCC 326 [Para 19] – Relied.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee And Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 [Para 8] – Relied.
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others (2002) 3 SCC 598 [Para 12] – Relied.
State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh (2001) 4 SCC 224 [Para 13] – Relied.
State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 [Para 12] – Relied.
Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) And Another (2020) 5 SCC 1 [Para 15] – Relied.
While considering application for grant of anticipatory bail court has to consider nature of offence, role of person, likelihood of his influencing course of investigation, or tampering with evidence....
Second or subsequent bail applications can be filed when there are change in circumstances, so that petitioner could establish entitlement of bail/anticipatory bail in view of change in circumstances....
Anticipatory bail should not be granted in serious offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for supervening circumstances or conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrating that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to....
The judgment establishes the importance of considering statutory provisions, amendments, and the sensitivity required in cases involving allegations against a minor victim, while also acknowledging t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in lodging the FIR may not be fatal to the prosecution if satisfactorily explained, and that the grounds for granting and cancelling....
(1) Anticipatory bail – Once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry – Filing of charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate prote....
Pre-arrest bail is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances, considering the gravity of accusations.
Bail cannot be granted in sexual assault cases against minors without significant scrutiny of charges and evidence; serious errors by the High Court necessitated cancellation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.