Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2022
Amy Mehta ..Appellant(S)
Versus
State of Karnataka & Anr. ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.
3492/2022, by which, the High Court has released
respondent No. 2 herein on bail in connection with an
FIR/Crime No. 8/2022 registered with Laxmipura Police
Station, Mysuru City for the offences punishable under
Sections 376, 354, 328 and 120B of IPC, the original
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.11.17
17:01:10 IST
Reason:
informant/complainant/prosecutrix/victim has preferred
the present appeal.
1
2. We have heard Ms. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Shubhranshu
Padhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
and Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent No. 2 – accused. We have gone
through and perused the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 2 on
bail.
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that what has weighed with the
High Court is that the complaint was filed after five days
and the allegations that the accused had mixed some
substance in the drinks that made her lose consciousness
and thereafter, he committed the offence on intoxicating
her and subjected her to the sexual act, is a matter of trial
and that the accused is in custody from 11.02.2022 and
there is no need of further custodial trial. The relevant
observations made in paragraph 6 of the impugned order
while releasing respondent No. 2 – accused on bail are as
under:
2
“6. Having heard the respective counsel
appearing for the parties and also on perusal of
the material available on record, the Court has
to take note of the contents of the allegations
and also the complaint is filed after five days,
wherein an allegation is made that this
petitioner mixed some substance in the drinks
to loose her conscious and thereafter he
committed the offence and the fact that both of
them went to Bopy’s Bar & Restaurant in order
to take food and also had alcohol. Having taken
note of the said fact into consideration whether
intoxicating her subjected her to sexual act is a
matter of trial and this petitioner is in custody
from 11.02.2022 and no need of further
custodial trial. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise
the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject
to imposing certain conditions to protect and
safeguard the interest of the prosecution.”
2.2 However, the High Court has failed to appreciate the
allegations in the FIR that immediately on the occurrence,
when the prosecutrix/victim regained consciousness, she
first went to the hospital and thereafter, tried to lodge the
FIR but no complaint was taken. In a case like this, the
High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that there
could have been some delay (though in the present case, it
may not be said that there was any inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR) as sometime could have been consumed
for the victim/prosecutrix to get out of the shock. Even the
3
said aspect is required to be considered at the time of the
trial.
2.3 Even otherwise, from the reasoning given, it appears that
the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of
the allegations and the gravity of the offences alleged
against the accused. It is reported that the chargesheet
has already been filed. So, whatever material has been
collected during the investigation was required to be
considered by the High Court while considering the
application under Section 439 of Cr.PC.
2.4 Even the observation that there is no need of further
custodial trial is also not relevant aspect while considering
the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The
same may have some relevance while considering the
application for anticipatory bail.
2.5 Having regard to the fact that while releasing respondent
No. 2 – accused on bail the High Court has not taken into
consideration the relevant aspects which are required to be
kept in mind while considering the bail application,
4
namely, seriousness of the offence alleged; material
collected during the investigation; statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, etc., the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable. Considering the fact that the chargesheet
has already been filed, the accused is already charge
sheeted and the relevant material is also now a part of the
chargesheet, the same is required to be considered by the
High Court. Therefore, the matter ought to be remitted to
the High Court to consider the bail application afresh and
pass appropriate orders after considering the relevant
material/evidence collected during the investigation which
are now a part of the chargesheet.
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal Succeeds. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 2
– accused on bail, deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted to the High Court to decide the bail application
afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits after
5
perusing the material/evidence collected during the
investigation which are now a part of the chargesheet and
upon taking into consideration the relevant aspects which
are required to be kept in mind while examining the prayer
for bail.
4. As the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court releasing respondent No. 2 – accused on bail has
been set aside, respondent No. 2 – accused is directed to
surrender before the concerned Court/Jail Authority
within a period of one week from today and only thereafter,
the High Court shall decide and dispose of the bail
application afresh, as observed hereinabove, at the
earliest. With this, the present appeal is allowed.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 17, 2022.
6