CASE NAME: Ms. X v. State of Telangana and Anr.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER: 000716 of 2018

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NUMBER: 1130 of 2018

BEFORE: The Supreme Court of India

BENCH:

(1) CJI Dipak Misra

(2) J. Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud (Author)
(3) J. A. M. Khanwilkar

DECIDED ON: 17th May 2018

RELEVANT ACTS AND SECTIONS:

Section 439 of The Criminal Procedure Code 1973

BREIF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

 Ms. X was an aspiring actress who became acquainted with the ‘accused’, a film producer,
through his niece.
 In July 2015, the accused allegedly visited Ms. X at her apartment. The two had wine, after
which the complainant felt dizzy. After regaining senses, the complainant realised that she
had been raped. On confronting, the accused allegedly threatened the complainant of being
in possession of her nude pictures and of his connections with the underworld.
 The accused and the complainant continued to have a relationship where the accused
would allegedly turn up at the complainant’s apartment at night and force her to have sex
with him against her wishes.
 While the accused was in Hyderabad, shooting a film, the complainant visited the accused
on two occasions and stayed with him in a hotel, where he is alleged to have raped her.
 The complainant claims that she has suffered from depression and has attempted suicide.
 The complainant lodged a complaint before a police station in Hyderabad on 10th January
2017.
 The accused was granted anticipatory bail on 30th January, 2017 by the Fourth Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for a period of 8 months.
 However, this order was cancelled on the 5th September 2017, on grounds that the accused
had not disclosed the fact that he had been accused in the 2G Spectrum case.
 The accused then moved an application under Section 439 of the CRPC for grant of bail.
 The High Court allowed the application for grant of bail on 17th November 2017.
 Challenging the above-mentioned grant of bail, the counsel on behalf of the complainant
submitted that the accused committed an offence of serious nature involving rape. It was
submitted that the accused was in a position of dominance and power as he was a film
producer and the complainant was aspiring actress.
 It was further submitted on behalf of the complainant that there existed a supervening
circumstance in light of which the grant of bail should be cancelled. A second FIR report
was filed by the complainant reporting incidents where an auto had intentionally obstructed
her path to hit her car and one where her car was followed by another vehicle. It was alleged
that attempts had been made to coerce the complainant to withdraw her complaint and to
settle the dispute against payment of consideration.
 Counsels appearing on behalf of the accused contended that there was no conduct on part
of the accused that would reflect any truth in the second FIR lodged four days after grant
of bail. They submitted that there existed no supervening circumstances or supervening
conduct on part of the accused that would support cancellation of bail.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW:

(1) Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused under Section
439?
(2) Whether there are any supervening circumstances which would warrant the
cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court?

RATIO OF THE COURT:

The High Court was found justified in granting bail to the accused under Section 439 as no
supervening circumstances were identified that would warrant the cancellation of bail granted
by the High Court.

The Apex Court relied on the well-settled principles in regards to grant of bail under section
493 of the CRPC. The Court referred to its pervious decisions such as Kanwar Singh v. State
of Rajasthan1 and Neeru Yadav v. State of UP2 where it has been held that the Courts must take
into consideration a number of factors while dealing with application for grant of bail such as,
nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, possibility of
tampering with witnesses, etc. Further, in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
this Hon’ble Court held that only in very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, an order
directing the cancellation of bail is granted. In this case the Hon’ble Court laid down some
grounds for cancellation of bail such as interference or attempt to interfere with due course of
administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of
the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These also include possibility of the
accused absconding. The Hon’ble Court has held in its previous judgements that bail once
granted should not be cancelled unless some supervening circumstances exist such that it is no
longer conducive to a fair trial3.

DECISION HELD:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad,
allowing the application for bail. No supervening circumstances were identified to warrant
cancellation of the bail.

The Hon’ble Court observed that there was a consensual relationship between the complainant
and the accused. Relevant circumstances as noted by the Court include intimate contact
between the two parties over a period of six months, the complainant’s visit to Hyderabad on
two occasions to stay with the accused in a hotel, the accused bearing the tickets for the
complainant, etc. It was further noted that the anticipatory bail that was granted on 30th January
2017 was cancelled only on the ground that it had not been disclosed by the accused that he
was involved in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court observed that the said prosecution ended in
an acquittal.

On the basis of the above-mentioned observations, it was decided by this Hon’ble Court that
the second FIR filed on 22nd November 2017, four days after grant of bail, did not constitute a
supervening circumstance due to its vagueness and lack of details and hence, not sufficient to
render an order cancelling bail.

1
Kanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 180]
2
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2016) 15 SCC 422]
3
Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Subramani Gopalakrishnan [(2011) 5 SCC 296];