Supreme Court Upholds Bail in Rape Case, Enhances Bond: Ms. X vs. State of Telangana (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 17, 2018

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 000716 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No 1130 of 2018)

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J

Can bail granted in a rape case be cancelled based on subsequent events? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where a film producer was accused of rape. The court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh correctly granted bail to the accused and whether new circumstances warranted its cancellation. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice Chandrachud.

Case Background

The complainant, an aspiring actress, alleged that she was raped by the accused, a film producer, on multiple occasions. The complainant stated that she met the accused through his niece in 2014. In July 2015, the accused allegedly invited himself to her apartment, where he allegedly raped her after she became dizzy from consuming wine. The complainant further alleged that the accused continued to have a sexual relationship with her against her wishes, including during visits to Hyderabad in September and October 2015. She also claimed that the accused made false promises of marriage and threatened her with nude photographs and underworld connections. The complainant filed a formal complaint on January 10, 2017, at the Hayathnagar Police Station in Hyderabad.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the accused was granted anticipatory bail on January 30, 2017, by the Fourth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. This bail was later canceled by the Sessions Judge because the accused failed to disclose his involvement in the 2G Spectrum case. The High Court affirmed the cancellation on September 5, 2017, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision on September 22, 2017, clarifying that the observations made during the cancellation of anticipatory bail should not influence the decision on regular bail. Subsequently, the accused applied for regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, which was granted by the High Court on November 17, 2017. The High Court considered factors such as the accused having anticipatory bail for eight months without any misconduct, the cancellation of bail being solely due to non-disclosure of the 2G Spectrum case, the examination of material witnesses, the accused’s medical ailments, the delay in filing the complaint, and the complainant being an adult aware of her actions. The High Court also noted that the allegation of a false promise of marriage was a matter for trial.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The accused was charged under the following sections of the IPC:

• Section 376, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for rape.
• Section 342, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for wrongful confinement.
• Section 493, IPC: This section deals with cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of a lawful marriage.
• Section 506, IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 354(C), IPC: This section deals with voyeurism.

The accused applied for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, which empowers the High Court and the Sessions Court to grant bail.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Complainant):

• The allegations are serious, involving rape by a person in a position of dominance.
• The accused, being a film producer, held a position of power over the complainant, an aspiring actress.
• The delay in filing the complaint should be viewed in light of the complainant’s suicide attempts due to the accused’s actions.
• A second FIR was filed on November 22, 2017, alleging harassment and attempts to pressure the complainant to withdraw her complaint.
• The investigation is incomplete, and the accused attempted to mislead the investigation by producing a cell phone that did not belong to him.
• The complainant clarified that the promise to marry was merely an elucidation of the facts and circumstances of the case, not the basis of the complaint.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (Accused):

• The accused was granted bail on November 17, 2017, and the Special Leave Petition was filed much later. The second FIR was lodged after the grant of bail to create a supervening event.
• The accused had anticipatory bail for eight months, which was canceled solely due to non-disclosure of the 2G Spectrum case, in which he was later acquitted.
• The accused spent 58 days in custody and cooperated with the investigation.
• The relationship between the complainant and the accused was consensual, as evidenced by the complainant’s voluntary visits to Hyderabad and the delay in filing the complaint.
• The complainant’s explanation for the delay in filing the complaint lacks factual basis and medical records.
• The complainant has given up the claim that the accused betrayed a promise to marry her.
• Supervening circumstances for canceling bail must indicate a violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty, which is not the case here.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973.
2. Whether there are any supervening circumstances that would warrant the cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kanwar Singh v State of Rajasthan [2012 (12) SCC 180]:* The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate the factors to be considered while granting bail, such as the gravity of the crime and the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses.
• Neeru Yadav v State of UP [2016 (15) SCC 422]:* This case was cited to emphasize the importance of considering the nature of the accusation and the apprehension of threat to the complainant while granting bail.
• State of Bihar v Rajballav Prasad [2017 (2) SCC 178]:* The Court used this case to highlight the need to balance the liberty of the accused with the public interest in ensuring a fair trial.
• Dolatram v State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]:* This authority was crucial in distinguishing between the rejection of bail and the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that cogent reasons are needed to cancel bail.
• Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v Subramani Gopalakrishnan [(2011) 5 SCC 296]:* The Court cited this case to reiterate that bail should not be canceled mechanically without considering supervening circumstances.
• Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh [2018 (2) SCALE 285]:* This recent judgment was used to reinforce the principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary to cancel bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the consensual nature of the relationship, the delay in filing the complaint, and the lack of a cogent supervening event to justify canceling the bail. The court also noted that the complainant had diluted her claim about the promise to marry. The court emphasized that bail should not be canceled unless there is a clear violation of bail conditions or a misuse of liberty.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but ultimately rejected them, emphasizing the need for a cogent supervening event to cancel bail. The Court held that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The complainant had intimate contact with the accused over a period of six months.
• The complainant visited the accused in Hyderabad on two occasions.
• The complaint was filed nearly a year after the last contact between the complainant and the accused.
• The complainant diluted her stand on the promise to marry.
• The second FIR was lodged after the grant of bail and was not a sufficient supervening circumstance.
• There was no cogent material to indicate that the accused had been guilty of conduct that would warrant his being deprived of his liberty.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“At this stage, all that we need to note is that 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.”

“Above all, the Court must bear in mind that 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.”

“We find that to be absent in the present case.”

There was no dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Bail once granted should not be canceled unless there is a cogent case based on a supervening event.
• The courts must consider the consensual nature of a relationship and the delay in filing a complaint in cases of sexual assault.
• The dilution of a claim regarding a promise to marry can impact the court’s assessment of the case.
• Supervening circumstances must be significant and directly related to the accused’s conduct after being granted bail.

This judgment reinforces the principle that bail should not be canceled lightly and that courts must carefully consider all the facts and circumstances of the case before making a decision. It also highlights the importance of supervening events in the context of bail cancellation.

Directions

The Supreme Court enhanced the quantum of the personal bond to Rs 10 lakhs, to be complied with within two weeks from the date of the judgment. Subject to this modification, the appeal was dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail once granted should not be canceled unless there is a cogent case based on a supervening event, which includes a violation of bail conditions or a misuse of liberty. This judgment reinforces the established legal position on the cancellation of bail and emphasizes the need for a high threshold for such cancellation. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment provides a clear application of these principles in a specific case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused in the rape case, finding that there were no sufficient supervening circumstances to warrant cancellation of the bail. The court emphasized that bail should not be canceled lightly and that there must be a cogent case based on a supervening event. The court enhanced the personal bond to Rs 10 lakhs but otherwise dismissed the appeal. This judgment reiterates the importance of balancing the liberty of the accused with the need for a fair trial and reinforces established principles regarding the grant and cancellation of bail.