The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli of the Apex Court in the case of Ms X Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr opined that while deciding an application of anticipatory bail the focus should be on the prima facie issues, such as some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the Accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence.
Noting that the Prosecutrix was the only witness in the present case, it was ruled that it becomes more necessary for the High Court to have attended to the Appellant in a case of this sort when there is typically only the Appellant as a witness. Also, such an approach tantamounts to failure to recognize the right of the Prosecutrix to participate in the criminal proceedings that would include a right to oppose the application for anticipatory bail moved by the Accused.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant, a model by profession filed a complaint against Respondent no. 2 in which she alleged that Respondent no. 2 lured her under the pretence of offering her modelling work, then he forced himself upon her and raped her in a hotel room where she was staying.
However, it was alleged that the police didn’t record the vital part of the statement and lodged a complaint for the offences under Sections 354, 354-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). The police didn’t even take her for a medical examination.
The Appellant approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police and thereafter, FIR was altered to include the offence under Section 376 of the IPC in light of the aforementioned remark.
The Respondent then filed an application seeking anticipatory bail, however, the same got rejected by the learned Additional Session Judge. Thereafter, the Respondent approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail and the High Court granted bail. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the High Court didn’t consider the gravity of the offence. It was also contended that even after an intervention application was filed by the Appellant in the application of an anticipatory bail she was not granted an opportunity for a hearing. Also, the High Court ignored the fact that Respondent no. 2 is an influential businessman who can influence the witnesses to the detriment of the Appellant.
Contentions of the Respondent No.2:
It was contended that the Respondent had duly cooperated and reported to the police station, whenever called. It was also contended that there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. Furthermore, not even the medical report and the circumstantial evidence supported the Prosecutrix case.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Top Court observed that while deciding an application of anticipatory bail the focus should be on the prima facie issues, such as some reasonable grounds that would go to show if the Accused has committed the offence or those facts that would reflect on the seriousness of the offence. The Court should avoid thoroughly analysing the evidence when deciding on a bail application. The self-imposed limitation on conducting a thorough study of the evidence at that point is justified for two reasons; to avoid any prejudice to the case put up by the Prosecution or the Defence that the Accused is likely to take and to maintain all aspects open until the trial is concluded.
It was also observed that even though an order of bail was previously granted in Respondent’s favour in relation to the offences with which he was charged, the addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can order that the Accused be arrested and committed to custody. If additional cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR after the Accused has been granted bail, his only option is to surrender and reapply for bail in relation to the newly added offences.
The Bench noted that there was sufficient material in the FIR that would prima facie attract Section 376 of the IPC. These factors ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of Respondent No.2 for granting him anticipatory bail.
It was also noted that even after filing an intervention application to the anticipatory bail application not even a single chance of hearing was granted to the Appellant. Even though the State was present and represented during the proceedings, the rights of the Appellant could not have been diminished solely as a result. It was all the more necessary for the High Court to have attended to the Appellant in a case of this sort when there is typically only the Appellant as a witness. Also, such an approach tantamounts to failure to recognize the right of the Prosecutrix to participate in the criminal proceedings that would include a right to oppose the application for anticipatory bail moved by the Accused.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed and set aside the orders granting anticipatory bail to the Accused.
The decision of the Court:
With the above directions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeals.
Case Title- Ms X Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Coram- Hon’ble Justice A.S. Bopanna and Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli
Case No.- CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 822-823 OF 2023
Citation- 2023 Latest Caselaw 214 SC
Advocate for the Appellant- Adv. Mr. R. Basant
Advocate for the Respondent- Adv. Mr. Sanjay R Hegde
Advocate for the State- Adv. Mr. Nitin Lonkar
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments