MS. X versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 17-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
MS. X
v.
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 000716 of 2018)
MAY 17, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Bail:
Regular bail – u/s. 439 CrPC.- Granted in a case involving
offences u/ss. 376, 342, 493, 506 and 354(C) of IPC – Cancellation
of – Held: There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused
had been guilty of conduct which would warrant his being deprived
of his liberty – No supervening circumstance made out to warrant
cancellation of bail – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439.
On the complaint of the appellant against respondent-
accused, charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable u/ss. 376,
343, 493, 506 and 354(C) of IPC. Accused was granted
anticipatory bail, which was later cancelled on the ground that
accused had not disclosed that he was an accused in 2G Spectrum
case. Thereafter, application for regular bail u/s. 439 CrPC was
allowed directing to release the accused on bail on executing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.  Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. These
circumstances do bear upon the defence that there was a
consensual relationship between the complainant and the accused.
[Para 13] [475-E-F]
2. The accused had the benefit of an order granting him
anticipatory bail. The grant of anticipatory bail was cancelled
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 466
466
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
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 a
supervening circumstance of such a nature as would warrant the
cancellation of the bail which was granted by the High Court. 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. [Para 14][476-B-C, D]
3. 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. [Para 15][476-E]
4.  However, the quantum of the personal bond fixed by the
High Court should be enhanced in the facts and circumstances of
the case. Accordingly, the quantum of the personal bond shall
stand enhanced to Rs 10 lakhs. [Para 16][476-F]
Kanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC
180 : [2012] 10 SCR 847; Neeru Yadav v. State of  UP
(2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802 ; State of
Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad (2017) 2 SCC 178 :
[2016] 9 SCR 652 ; Dolatram v. State
of 
Haryana
(1995) 1 SCC 349 :  [1994]  6 Suppl.  SCR  69 ; Central
Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. Subramani
Gopalakrishnan (2011) 5 SCC 296 : [2011] 5 SCR
824 ; Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2018 (2) SCALE 285 – referred to.
Case  Law Reference
[2012] 10 SCR 847
  referred to
Para 11
[2015] 10 SCR 802
  referred to
Para 11
[2016] 9 SCR 652
  referred to
Para 11
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69  referred to
Para 12
[2011] 5 SCR 824
  referred to
Para 12
2018 (2) SCALE 285
  referred to
Para 12
MS. X  v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 716 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad in CRL P No. 10602 of 2017.
Karuna Nundy, Raunak Nayak, Avinesh Bhardwaj, Ms. Aparna
Bhat, Mayank Sapra, Advs for the Appellant.
Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs, R. N. Karanjawala,
Sandeep Kapur, Mahesh Aggarwal, Deb Malya Banerjee, Shivek Trehan,
Vir Inderpal Singh Sandhu, A. S. Aman, Ms. Niharika Karanjawala,
Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Abhimanshu Dhyani, Mayank Aggarwal, Ankur
Sehgal, Kartik Bhatnagar, Aviral Kapoor, Ms. Iara Khalid, M/s.
Karanjawala & Co.,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.