Ms. X vs The State of Telangana and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 May 2018

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 000716 of 2018

Result

Disposed

Bench

Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar

Citation

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 466 : 2018 INSC 529

Headnote

Bail:

Regular bail – u/s. 439 CrPC.- Granted in a case involving offences u/ss. 376, 342, 493, 506 and 354(C) of IPC – Cancellation of – Held: There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused had been guilty of conduct which would warrant his being deprived of his liberty – No supervening circumstance made out to warrant cancellation of bail – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439. On the complaint of the appellant against respondentaccused, charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable u/ss. 376, 343, 493, 506 and 354(C) of IPC. Accused was granted anticipatory bail, which was later cancelled on the ground that accused had not disclosed that he was an accused in 2G Spectrum case. Thereafter, application for regular bail u/s. 439 CrPC was allowed directing to release the accused on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Even going by the case of the complainant, there was intimate contact between the complainant and the accused over a period of nearly six months between July 2015 and January 2016. Even according to the complainant, she visited the accused on two occasions in Hyderabad and stayed with him. The tickets for her travel from Mumbai were borne by the accused. The complaint was filed nearly a year thereafter in January 2017. These circumstances do bear upon the defence that there was a consensual relationship between the complainant and the accused. [Para 13] [475-E-F]

2. The accused had the benefit of an order granting him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled principally on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been informed during the course of the hearing that the said prosecution has ended in an acquittal. Regular bail was granted by the High Court on 17 November 2017 in the present case. The second FIR which was lodged on 22 November 2017 is not a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. It is a settled principle of law that bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event has been made out. [Para 14][476-B-C, D]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Bail was granted to the second respondent on 17 November 2017 by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The order forms the subject matter of the present appeal. 3. The second respondent (“the accused”) is a film producer, based in Mumbai. The complainant alleged, in a complaint which she filed on 10 January 2017, that in June 2014 she had enrolled in an institute which imparts training in film acting. She resided in a rented

View Subscription Plans →