TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he would come to her home in the hours of night and compel her to have sex with him, against her wishes. On 12 September 2015 it is alleged that he invited her to join him in Hyderabad where he was shooting a film. The complainant stayed with the Accused in a hotel, when he is alleged to have raped her. She alleges that she visited Hyderabad again on October 12, 2015 and stayed with him, when he raped her. The complainant claims that she suffers from depression and had attempted suicide. The complainant alleged that the Accused had been making false promises of marriage to her and was exploiting her continuously. A complaint was lodged before the Station Officer at Police Station, Hayathnagar in Hyderabad on 10 January 2017. 4. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted on 6 March 2018, for offences punishable Under Sections 376, 342, 493, 506 and 354 (C) of the Penal Code. 5 . The Accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Fourth Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by an order dated 30 January 2017. The Accused had the benefit of that order for a period of eight months. The order of anticipatory bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge, prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 . Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that: (i) The allegations in the complaint are of a serious nature involving rape committed by a person in a position of dominance; (ii) The Accused as a film producer wielded a position of power in relation to the complainant who was an aspiring actress; (iii) The lapse of the period between January 2016 (the allegation of the complainant being that she was raped between July 2015 and January 2016) and the filing of the complaint in January 2017 must be construed in the context of her explanation that the conduct of the Accused had caused her to attempt suicide on three occasions; (iv) There is a supervening circumstance which is the filing of a first information report by the complainant on 22 November 2017 complaining that while driving her car in New Delhi, an auto had intentionally obstructed her path and hit her car besides which, her car has been followed by another vehicle. Besides, an attempt has been made to pressurise the complainant to withdraw her complaint and to settle the dispute against the payment of a consideration of Rs. 5 crores; (v) Though a charge-sheet has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cellation of bail, must be of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that the Accused does not deserve to be at liberty either by reason of a violation of the conditions of bail or due to supervening conduct which bears upon the misuse of liberty by the Accused. No such case is made out. 10 . During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant alleged before the Court that her submissions in assailing the order of the High Court deal with two facets namely: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the Accused Under Section 439; (ii) Whether there are any supervening circumstances which would warrant the cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court. 11 . While the principles in regard to the grant of bail Under Section 439 are well settled, we may note for the completeness of the record, that reliance has been placed on behalf of the Appellant on the decisions of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2012 (12) SCC 180, Neeru Yadav v. State of UP and State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad 2017(2)SCC 178. In Kanwar Singh , a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court has held thus: Section 439 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hly and in a fair manner that has to be given prime importance in such situations. 12. 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 Dolatram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 observed that: Rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, already granted, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion of attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the Accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the Accused absconding is yet anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad (as she described in the complaint) been making false promises for getting married to her . This has been reiterated in the charge-sheet which has been submitted on 6 March 2018. 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. Even according to the complainant, she visited the Accused on two occasions in Hyderabad and stayed with him. The tickets for her travel from Mumbai were borne by the Accused. The complaint was filed nearly a year thereafter in January 2017. This is a relevant circumstance which has been taken note of by the High Court. These circumstances do bear upon the defence that there was a consensual relationship between the complainant and the Accused. Both in her complaint as well as in the charge-sheet, it has been alleged that the Accused had falsely promised to marry the complainant. However, in the course of the rejoinder, the complainant has substantially diluted this stand, alleging that: That the Petitioner has at every stage-including in arguments before this Hon'ble Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
