Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case: Ms. X vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 17, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 237

Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail to an accused in a rape case, especially when there are serious allegations and the victim’s testimony is crucial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the victim’s right to be heard. This case involves a model, Ms. X, who accused a businessman of rape, leading to a legal battle over anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, overturned the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to the accused, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the case’s facts and the victim’s perspective. The judgment was authored by Justice Hima Kohli.

Case Background

The appellant, Ms. X, a model, filed a complaint against the respondent, a businessman, alleging rape. The initial complaint was filed on August 5, 2022, with the MIDC Police Station in Mumbai. Ms. X stated that the respondent lured her with modeling assignments and then forced himself on her in a hotel room.

Initially, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 354, 354-B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, after a supplementary statement from Ms. X, Section 376 of the IPC (rape) was added to the FIR. Ms. X alleged that the police initially did not record her statement accurately and did not take her for a medical examination despite her allegations of rape.

Ms. X stated that the police pressured her to settle the matter with the respondent. When she refused, the police registered the FIR but allegedly watered down the charges to favor the respondent.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) granted bail to the respondent on August 6, 2022, but this was later cancelled on August 23, 2022, after the addition of Section 376 of the IPC. The respondent then applied for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, which was rejected on September 17, 2022. The Additional Sessions Judge noted that even without considering the supplementary statements, the FIR prima facie made out a case under Section 376 IPC.

The respondent then approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which granted interim anticipatory bail on September 21, 2022, and confirmed it on October 7, 2022. The High Court cited “star variations” in the prosecutrix’s statements as a reason for granting bail.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 354-B of the IPC: Addresses assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe her.
• Section 376 of the IPC: Defines and penalizes the offense of rape.
• Section 506 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of criminal intimidation.
• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Provides for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing the grant of bail as laid out in various judgments, including the need to consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses.

Arguments

Appellant/Prosecutrix’s Arguments:

• The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the allegations against the respondent.
• The High Court erred in observing “star variations” in the prosecutrix’s statements, as the FIR itself was sufficient to demonstrate an offense under Section 376 of the IPC.
• The High Court ignored the Additional Sessions Judge’s observations that the FIR prima facie made out a case under Section 376 of the IPC.
• The appellant was not given a hearing despite filing an intervention application.
• The respondent is a wealthy and influential businessman who could influence witnesses.

Respondent/Accused’s Arguments:

• The respondent cooperated with the investigation and reported to the police station when called.
• There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.
• The circumstantial evidence and medical report do not support the allegations.
• There is no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail.

State’s Arguments:

• A charge-sheet has been filed, and 25 witnesses have been cited, including 12 independent witnesses.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused despite the gravity of the offense and the victim’s allegations of rape.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in not giving a hearing to the victim despite filing an intervention application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee And Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 – Supreme Court of India: Outlined the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation.
• State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar case for factors to consider while granting bail.
• Prahlad Singh Bhat v. NCT, Delhi and Another (2001) 4 SCC 280 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar case for factors to consider while granting bail.
• Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others (2002) 3 SCC 598 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar case for factors to consider while granting bail.
• Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2009) 14 SCC 286 – Supreme Court of India: Stressed that courts should not mechanically grant bail and should provide reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• State of Maharashtra v. Ritesh (2001) 4 SCC 224 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra And Others (2005) 3 SCC 143 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Others (2002) 9 SCC 364 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad And Another (2005) 7 SCC 326 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2014) 16 SCC 508 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT Of Delhi) And Another (2018) 12 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia And Another (2020) 2 SCC 118 – Supreme Court of India: Cited in Masroor case for the need to indicate reasons for granting bail.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav And Another (2004) 7 SCC 528 – Supreme Court of India: Held that when previous bail applications have been rejected, the court must provide specific reasons for granting bail.
• Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) And Another (2020) 5 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Constitution Bench clarified that anticipatory bail should not be limited to a fixed period.
• Myakala Dharmarajam and Others v. State of Telangana and Another (2020) 2 SCC 743 – Supreme Court of India: Held that a superior court can cancel bail if the lower court failed to consider relevant factors.
• Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra And Another (2021) 8 SCC 753 – Supreme Court of India: Reiterated the view in Myakala Dharmarajam case.
• Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand And Another (2019) 17 SCC 326 – Supreme Court of India: Addressed the situation where new offenses are added after bail is granted.
• Jagjeet Singh And Others v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu And Another (2022) 9 SCC 321 – Supreme Court of India: Emphasized the victim’s right to be heard in criminal proceedings.

Statutes:

• Section 354, Indian Penal Code: Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 354-B, Indian Penal Code: Assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe her.
• Section 376, Indian Penal Code: Defines and penalizes the offense of rape.
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code: Criminal intimidation.
• Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure: Provision for grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 437(5), Code of Criminal Procedure: Power of court to direct arrest of a person released on bail.
• Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure: Power of High Court or Court of Session to direct arrest of a person released on bail.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case for the principles on granting bail, emphasizing the need to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation.
• Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case, underscoring the need to provide reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing that specific reasons must be given for granting bail when previous applications were rejected.
• Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case, clarifying that anticipatory bail should not be limited to a fixed period.
• Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case, stating that a superior court can cancel bail if the lower court failed to consider relevant factors.
• Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case, stating that the addition of a serious offense can lead to arrest even if bail was granted earlier.
• Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra [CITATION]: The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing the victim’s right to be heard in criminal proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Gravity of the Offense: The Court emphasized that the High Court did not adequately consider the gravity of the rape allegations.
• Victim’s Right to be Heard: The Court stressed the importance of the victim’s right to participate in criminal proceedings and to be heard.
• Prima Facie Case: The Court noted that the FIR itself contained sufficient material to prima facie attract the provision of Section 376 of IPC.
• Previous Orders: The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge.
• Potential for Witness Tampering: The Court noted that the respondent, being a wealthy and influential businessman, could influence witnesses.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the facts, the legal provisions, and the precedents. The Court emphasized that the High Court had overlooked crucial aspects, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had not given adequate consideration to the victim’s right to be heard, which is a crucial aspect of criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of “star variations” in the prosecutrix’s statements, stating that the FIR itself contained sufficient material to prima facie attract the provision of Section 376 of IPC.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “star variations in the narration of the prosecutrix….”.
• “…the averments made in the FIR prima facie make out a case under Section 376 IPC.”
• “The appellant/prosecutrix having been denied a meaningful hearing when the first impugned order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent No. 2/accused was confirmed by the second impugned order, is an additional factor that has prevailed with this Court to interfere in the impugned orders.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench of two judges was unanimous in their decision.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must consider the gravity of offenses, especially in cases of rape, when deciding on anticipatory bail.
• Victims have a right to be heard in criminal proceedings, and their perspective must be considered.
• Courts should not make assumptions about the veracity of the victim’s statements at the stage of granting anticipatory bail.
• The FIR itself can be sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case, even without supplementary statements.
• Cooperation with investigation is not the only factor to be considered while granting bail.
• Superior Courts can cancel bail if the lower court failed to consider relevant factors.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registry to redact the name of the appellant/prosecutrix from the records to protect her identity. The Court also directed that in sensitive matters, the name of the prosecutrix should be redacted before the matter is placed before the Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused by not considering the gravity of the offense, thevictim’s right to be heard, and the prima facie evidence in the FIR. The Court emphasized that in serious offenses like rape, the victim’s perspective is crucial, and the courts must not make assumptions about the veracity of the victim’s statements at the stage of granting anticipatory bail. The Court also reiterated that the FIR itself can be sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case, even without supplementary statements.

Change in Previous Legal Position: The judgment reinforces the principle that victims have a right to be heard in criminal proceedings, especially in cases of serious offenses. It also clarifies that superior courts can cancel bail if the lower court failed to consider relevant factors. The judgment further emphasizes that the gravity of the offense and the potential for witness tampering must be given due consideration when deciding on anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court also clarified that the High Court should not delve deep into the analysis of the evidence at the stage of granting bail.