2018 (5) TMI 2159 - SC - Indian Laws

Correctness of Grant of bail to accused - Whether there are any supervening circumstances which would warrant the cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court? - Rape - false promises of marriage - complainant alleged that the Accused had been making false promises of marriage to her and was exploiting her continuously - HELD THAT - In a consistent line of precedent this Court has emphasised the distinction between the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In adverting to the distinction a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in DOLAT RAM VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA 1994 (11) TMI 424 - SUPREME COURT observed that The satisfaction of the court on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the Accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the Accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. The Accused had the benefit of an order granting him anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled principally on the ground that he had not disclosed the pendency of a prosecution against him in the 2G Spectrum case. The Court has been informed during the course of the hearing that the said prosecution has ended in an acquittal. Regular bail was granted by the High Court on 17 November 2017 in the present case. The second FIR which was lodged on 22 November 2017 is not in our view a supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused has submitted that the lodging of the second FIR four days after the order of bail is merely an attempt to bolster a case based on a supervening event and that it suffers from vagueness and a complete absence of details. The order of the High Court allowing the application for bail cannot be faulted. Moreover no supervening circumstance has been made out to warrant the cancellation of the bail. There is no cogent material to indicate that the Accused has been guilty of conduct which would warrant his being deprived of his liberty. The quantum of the personal bond shall stand enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the High Court in granting bail to the accused under Section 439.
2. Presence of any supervening circumstances warranting the cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the High Court in Granting Bail to the Accused Under Section 439:

The High Court granted bail to the accused based on several considerations:
- The accused was on anticipatory bail for about eight months without any allegation of improper conduct.
- The cancellation of anticipatory bail was solely due to non-disclosure of involvement in the 2G Spectrum case.
- All material witnesses were examined, and the cell phone recovered was sent to the forensic science laboratory.
- The accused was granted regular bail during the 2G Spectrum case trial without any violation of bail terms.
- The accused suffers from medical ailments.
- The alleged offences occurred between July 2015 and January 2016, but the complaint was lodged only on 10 January 2017.
- The complainant is an adult, aware of her actions.
- The allegation of a false promise of marriage is a matter for trial.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail could not be faulted. The complainant's delay in filing the complaint and the nature of her relationship with the accused were relevant circumstances considered by the High Court. The complainant's allegation of a false promise to marry was also diluted during the proceedings.

2. Presence of Any Supervening Circumstances Warranting the Cancellation of the Bail Granted by the High Court:

The complainant's counsel argued that:
- The allegations were serious, involving rape by a person in a dominant position.
- The accused wielded power as a film producer.
- The delay in filing the complaint was due to the complainant's suicide attempts caused by the accused's conduct.
- A supervening circumstance involved an FIR filed on 22 November 2017, alleging harassment and pressure to withdraw the complaint.
- The investigation was incomplete, and the accused misled it by producing a cell phone belonging to his daughter.

The accused's counsel countered that:
- The bail was granted on 17 November 2017, and the second FIR was lodged four days later to set up a case of supervening event.
- The accused had the benefit of anticipatory bail for nearly eight months, and the sole ground for cancellation was non-disclosure of the 2G Spectrum case.
- The accused spent 58 days in custody and cooperated with the investigation.
- The relationship was consensual, and the complaint was filed nearly a year after the last contact.
- No factual basis or medical records supported the complainant's explanation for the delay.
- Supervening circumstances must indicate a violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty, which was not the case here.

The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between rejecting bail initially and canceling it after being granted. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for canceling bail, such as interference with justice or absconding. The second FIR was not considered a supervening circumstance warranting cancellation of bail. The Court found no cogent material indicating the accused's conduct warranted deprivation of liberty.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order granting bail, finding no supervening circumstances to warrant cancellation. The quantum of the personal bond was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs, with compliance required within two weeks. Pending IAs were also disposed of.