IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI] [A M KHANWILKAR, J.] [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
May 17, 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 000716 OF 2018
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO 1130 OF 2018)
MS. X ..Appellant
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Bail was postulated to a second respondent on 17 Nov 2017 by a schooled singular Judge of a High Court of Judicature during Hyderabad for a States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The sequence forms a theme matter of a benefaction appeal.
3. The second respondent (“the accused”) is a film producer, formed in Mumbai. The complainant alleged, in a censure that she filed on 10 Jan 2017, that in Jun 2014 she had enrolled in an hospital that imparts training in film acting. She resided in a rented unit in Mumbai. The complainant states that she became proficient with a niece of a accused, who was to be married in Dec 2014. In a march of her visits to a home of her friend, a complainant became proficient with a accused, who was producing a Hindi film. In Jul 2015 a indicted is purported to have invited himself to a home of a complainant. The indicted and a complainant had wine. The complainant alleges that she felt drunken after a few sips, and a indicted forced himself on her. It was after she regained senses that she realised that a indicted had raped her. The indicted left her unit and when she called him, it is purported that he threatened her of being in possession of her bare photographs and of his connectors with a underworld. The complainant purported that a indicted continue to have a attribute with her; that he would come to her home in a hours of night and enforce her to have sex with him, opposite her wishes. On 12 Sep 2015 it is purported that he invited her to join him in Hyderabad where he was sharpened a film. The complainant stayed with a indicted in a hotel, when he is purported to have raped her. She alleges that she visited Hyderabad again on Oct 12, 2015 and stayed with him, when he raped her. The complainant claims that she suffers from basin and had attempted suicide. The complainant purported that a indicted had been creation fake promises of matrimony to her and was exploiting her continuously. A censure was lodged before a Station Officer during Police Station, Hayathnagar in Hyderabad on 10 Jan 2017.
4. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 6 Mar 2018, for offences punishable underneath Sections 376, 342, 493, 506 and 354 (C) of a Penal Code.
5. The indicted was postulated anticipatory bail by a Fourth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by an sequence antiquated 30 Jan 2017. The indicted had a advantage of that sequence for a duration of 8 months. The sequence of anticipatory bail was cancelled by a Sessions Judge, predominantly on a belligerent that a indicted had not disclosed a fact that he had been indicted in a 2G Spectrum box (CC No.1 of 2011). The sequence of termination was endorsed by a High Court on 5 Sep 2017, and by this Court on 22 Sep 2017, nonetheless with a construction that while traffic with a focus underneath Section 439 of a Criminal Procedure Code 1973, a Court shall not be shabby by any of a observations done while cancelling anticipatory bail. The indicted afterwards changed an focus underneath Section 439 for a extend of bail in Case Crime 33/2017, purebred by a Hayathnagar Police Station for offences punishable underneath Sections 376, 342, 493, 506 and 354 (C) of a Penal Code.
6. The High Court has authorised a focus for a extend of bail and has destined that a indicted be expelled on executing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with dual sureties any in a like sum to a compensation of a Metropolitan Magistrate. The indicted has been destined not to leave a nation but a accede of a conference Court. In permitting a application, a High Court has relied on a following circumstances:
(i) The indicted was on anticipatory bail for a duration of about 8 months during a march of that there is no claim of crude conduct;
(ii) The extend of anticipatory bail was cancelled usually on a belligerent that a indicted had not suggested his impasse in a 2G Spectrum case;
(iii) All element witnesses have been examined during a march of a review and a dungeon phone recovered from his possession was sent to a debate scholarship laboratory, whose news is awaited;
(iv) The indicted was postulated unchanging bail during a pendency of a conference in a 2G Spectrum box and there was no claim of a defilement of a terms on that bail was granted. In a meantime, a indicted had trafficked abroad with a accede of a Court;
(v) The indicted is pang from middle ailments;
(vi) Though a purported offences took place between Jul 2015 and Jan 2016, a censure was lodged usually on 10 Jan 2017;
(vi) The complainant is an adult, who was cognizant of her actions; and
(vii) The claim of a complainant that a indicted had betrothed to marry her was a matter of conference and possibly her agree was performed by rascal could usually be determined during a march of a trial.
7. Ms Karuna Nundy, schooled warn appearing on seductiveness of a appellant submits that:
(i) The allegations in a censure are of a critical inlet involving rape committed by a chairman in a position of dominance;
(ii) The indicted as a film writer wielded a position of energy in propinquity to a complainant who was an determined actress;
(iii) The relapse of a duration between Jan 2016 (the claim of a complainant being that she was raped between Jul 2015 and Jan 2016) and a filing of a censure in Jan 2017 contingency be construed in a context of her reason that a control of a indicted had caused her to try self-murder on 3 occasions;
(iv) There is a supervening business that is a filing of a initial information news by a complainant on 22 Nov 2017 angry that while pushing her automobile in New Delhi, an automobile had intentionally blocked her trail and strike her automobile besides which, her automobile has been followed by another vehicle. Besides, an try has been done to pressurise a complainant to repel her censure and to “settle” a brawl opposite a remuneration of a care of Rs 5 crores;
(v) Though a charge-sheet has been filed, a review is still incomplete. The indicted has attempted to trick a review by producing a dungeon phone that belonged to his daughter and not to him. 8 Learned warn appearing on seductiveness of a complainant staid that this is not a box involving a crack of a guarantee to marry.
9. On a other palm Mr Mukul Rohtagi and Mr Sidharth Luthra, schooled comparison warn appearing on seductiveness of a indicted submitted that:
(i) Bail was postulated to a indicted on 17 Nov 2017. The Special Leave Petition was filed on 23 Dec 2017 and was in objections of a Registry of this probity until it was listed in Mar 2018. The second FIR was lodged on 22 Nov 2017, 4 days after a extend of bail to somehow set adult a box of supervening event. There is zero before or after a extend of bail that reflects on a control of a accused;
(ii) Even before a extend of unchanging bail, a indicted had a advantage of an sequence of anticipatory bail for scarcely 8 months and a solitary belligerent on that it was cancelled was a non-disclosure of a assign in a 2G Spectrum box (which has given finished in acquittal);
(iii) After a sequence of anticipatory bail was cancelled, a indicted spent 58 days in custody, including military and legal control and cooperated with a review in all respects;
(iv) The allegations of rape camber over a duration between Jul 2015 to Jan 2017, both in Mumbai and Hyderabad. Going by a box of a complainant, she willingly visited a indicted in Hyderabad during a march of a film sharpened and stayed with him in a hotel on dual occasions for that tickets were supposing by a accused. The attribute between a complainant and a indicted was of a consensual inlet and a filing of a censure scarcely one year after a final hit between them indicates that it is an after-thought;
(v) The reason that a censure was filed a year after since a complainant was undergoing diagnosis and had attempted to dedicate self-murder has no significant basement and no medical record has been produced;
(vi) The box in a censure that a indicted had tricked a guarantee to marry a complainant is sought to be given adult in a march of a acquiescence before this Court as good as in a retort that has been filed in these proceedings.
(vii) Supervening circumstances, for a termination of bail, contingency be of such a inlet as to lead to a end that a indicted does not merit to be during autocracy possibly by reason of a defilement of a conditions of bail or due to supervening control that bears on a injustice of autocracy by a accused. No such box is done out.
10. During a march of a hearing, schooled warn appearing on seductiveness of a complainant purported before a Court that her submissions in assailing a sequence of a High Court understanding with dual facets namely:
(i) Whether a High Court was fit in extenuation bail to a indicted underneath Section 439;
(ii) Whether there are any supervening resources that would aver a termination of a bail postulated by a High Court.
11. While a beliefs in courtesy to a extend of bail underneath Section 439 are good settled, we might note for a completeness of a record, that faith has been placed on seductiveness of a appellant on a decisions of this Court in Kanwar Singh v State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180; Neeru Yadavv State of UP, (2016) 15 SCC 422 and State of Bihar v Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2SCC 178. In Kanwar Singh, a Bench of dual schooled Judges of this Court has reason thus:
“Section 439 of a Code confers really far-reaching powers on a High Court and a Court of Sessions per bail. But, while extenuation bail, a High Court and a Sessions Court are guided by a same considerations as other courts. That is to say, a sobriety of a crime, a impression of a evidence, position and standing of a indicted with anxiety to a plant and witnesses, a odds of a indicted journey from probity and repeating a offence, a probability of his tampering with a witnesses and division a march of probity and such other drift are compulsory to be taken into consideration. Each rapist box presents a possess rare significant unfolding and, therefore, certain drift rare to a sold box might have to be taken into comment by a court.”
In Neeru Yadav, requesting a same principle, this Court reason that:
“It is a well-settled element of law that while traffic with an focus for extend of bail, it is a avocation of a Court to take into care certain factors and they fundamentally are:
(i) a inlet of indictment and a astringency of punishment in cases of self-assurance and a inlet of ancillary evidence,
(ii) reasonable confinement of tampering with a witnesses for confinement of hazard to a complainant, and (iii) prima facie compensation of a Court in support of a charge.”
The preference in Rajballav Prasademphasises that while a autocracy of a theme is an critical consideration, a open seductiveness in a correct administration of rapist probity is equally important:
“…undoubtedly a courts have to adopt a magnanimous proceed while deliberation bail applications of indicted persons. However, in a given case, if it is found that there is a probability of interdicting satisfactory conference by a indicted if expelled on bail, this open seductiveness of satisfactory conference would transcend a personal seductiveness of a indicted while endeavour a charge of balancing a autocracy of a indicted on a one palm and seductiveness of a multitude to have a satisfactory conference on a other hand. When a witnesses are not means to overthrow rightly in a probity of law, it formula in low rate of self-assurance and many times even hardened criminals shun a conviction. It shakes open certainty in a rapist probity smoothness system. It is this need for incomparable open seductiveness to safeguard that rapist probity smoothness complement works efficiently, uniformly and in a satisfactory demeanour that has to be given primary significance in such situations.”
12. In a unchanging line of fashion this Court has emphasised a eminence between a rejecting of bail in a non-bailable box during a initial theatre and a termination of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to a distinction, a Bench of dual schooled Judges of this Court in Dolatram vState of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 celebrated that:
“Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable box during a initial theatre and a termination of bail so granted, have to be deliberate and dealt with on opposite basis. Very reasoning and strenuous resources are required for an sequence directing a termination of a bail, already granted. Generally speaking, a drift for termination of a bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: division or try to meddle with a due march of administration of probity or semblance of try to hedge a due march of probity or abuse of a benefaction postulated to a indicted in any manner. The compensation of a court, on a basement of element placed on a record of a probability of a indicted absconding is nonetheless another reason justifying a termination of bail. However, bail once postulated should not be cancelled in a automatic demeanour but deliberation possibly any supervening resources have rendered it no longer gainful to a satisfactory conference to concede a indicted to keep his leisure by enjoying a benefaction of bail during a trial.”
These beliefs have been reiterated by another dual Judge Bench preference in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan, (2011) 5 SCC 296 and some-more recently in Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 (2) SCALE 285:
“It is also applicable to note that there is disproportion between yardsticks for termination of bail and seductiveness opposite a sequence extenuation bail. Very reasoning and strenuous resources are required for an sequence directing a termination of bail already granted. Generally speaking, a drift for termination of bail are, division or try to meddle with a due march of administration of probity or semblance or try to hedge a due march of probity or abuse of a concessions postulated to a indicted in any manner. These are all usually few scholastic materials. The compensation of a Court on a basement of a materials placed on record of a probability of a indicted absconding is another reason justifying a termination of bail. In other words, bail once postulated should not be cancelled in a automatic demeanour but deliberation possibly any supervening resources have rendered it no longer gainful to a satisfactory conference to concede a indicted to keep his leisure by enjoying a benefaction of bail during a trial.”
13. Having deliberate a opposition submissions, we are not during this stage, prone to excavate into a merits of a allegations during any length in sequence topreclude a probability of a observations conversion a march of a trial. Since a seductiveness has been argued during some length before a Court, we are indicating a reasons, nonetheless with a construction – by approach of abounding warn – that a observations are cramped to a issues that arise here in an seductiveness opposite a sequence of a High Court extenuation bail underneath Section 439. Having listened schooled counsel, we have arrived during a end that a practice of option by a High Court in a benefaction box can't be faulted. We must, during a outset, note that a box of a complainant is that a indicted had (as she described in a complaint) “beenmaking fake promises for removing married to her”. This has been reiterated in a charge-sheet that has been submitted on 6 Mar 2018. At this stage, all that we need to note is that even going by a box of a complainant, there was insinuate hit between a complainant and a indicted over a duration of scarcely 6 months between Jul 2015 and Jan 2016. Even according to a complainant, she visited a indicted on dual occasions in Hyderabad and stayed with him. The tickets for her transport from Mumbai were borne by a accused. The censure was filed scarcely a year afterward in Jan 2017. This is a applicable business that has been taken note of by a High Court. These resources do bear on a counterclaim that there was a consensual attribute between a complainant and a accused. Both in her censure as good as in a charge-sheet, it has been purported that a indicted had secretly betrothed to marry a complainant. However, in a march of a rejoinder, a complainant has almost diluted this stand, alleging that:
“That a Petitioner has during each theatre –including in arguments before this Hon’ble Court – confirmed that a guarantee to marry was merely a finish explication of a contribution and resources of a case.”
During a march of a hearing, schooled warn appearing on seductiveness of a complainant submitted that this is not a box involving a crack of a guarantee to marry.
14. The indicted had a advantage of an sequence extenuation him anticipatory bail. The extend of anticipatory bail was cancelled predominantly on a belligerent that he had not disclosed a pendency of a assign opposite him in a 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been sensitive during a march of a conference that a pronounced assign has finished in an acquittal. Regular bail was postulated by a High Court on 17 Nov 2017 in a benefaction case. The second FIR that was lodged on 22 Nov 2017 is not, in a view, a supervening business of such a inlet as would aver a termination of a bail that was postulated by a High Court. The schooled warn appearing on seductiveness of a indicted has submitted that a camp of a second FIR, 4 days after a sequence of bail is merely an try to accelerate a box formed on a supervening eventuality and that it suffers from obscurity and a finish deficiency of details. We are not prone to make any serve observations and leave a matter there. Above all, a Court contingency bear in mind that it is a staid element of law that bail once postulated should not be cancelled unless a reasoning case, formed on a supervening eventuality has been done out. We find that to be absent in a benefaction case.
15. For a above reasons, we reason that a sequence of a High Court permitting a focus for bail can't be faulted. Moreover, no supervening business has been done out to aver a termination of a bail. There is no reasoning element to prove that a indicted has been guilty of control that would aver his being deprived of his liberty.
16. However, we are of a perspective that a quantum of a personal bond bound by a High Court should be extended in a contribution and resources of a case. We, accordingly approach that a quantum of a personal bond shall mount extended to Rs 10 lakhs. Compliance shall be effected within dual weeks from today. Subject to a above modification, a seductiveness shall mount likely of.