The Supreme Court ruled that if significant offenses are added to an FIR after bail is granted, the bail may be canceled.
The appeal before the bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli challenged the Bombay High Court’s orders granting anticipatory bail to the accused, respondent No.2. The appellant, a model by profession, filed a complaint with P.S. MIDC in Mumbai accusing the businessman of luring her with the promise of modelling assignments, but then raping her in a hotel room where she was staying.
The appellant/prosecutrix claimed that the police had purposely excluded a crucial part of her statement while registering the FIR to favor the respondent No.2/accused. The FIR only included charges under Sections 354, 354-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the appellant accused the police of intentionally not taking her for a medical examination despite her allegations of rape against the respondent No.2/accused. Despite these allegations, the High Court granted interim protection to the respondent No.2/accused. The appeal challenging this decision was heard by the bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli.
The Supreme Court cited the Masroor case, where it was stated that granting bail should not be a mechanical process, and the absence of relevant considerations can lead to interference with such an order. The bench also referred to other judgments and held that if further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR after the grant of bail, the accused can surrender and apply afresh for bail for the new offences. The investigating agency can also seek the custody of the accused by invoking the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to bails and bonds.
In addition, the Supreme Court rejected the respondent No. 2/accused’s argument that the appellant/prosecutrix had been continuously changing her statement in the supplementary statements. The Court noted that even if the supplementary statements were disregarded, there was still sufficient prima facie evidence in the FIR to establish an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
The bench further observed that the appellant/prosecutrix had filed an intervention application in the petition for anticipatory bail filed by respondent No. 2/accused before the High Court, but was not given a hearing. Although the State was present and represented in the proceedings, the appellant’s right to be heard could not have been ignored. In a case of this nature, where the prosecutrix is often the only witness, it was essential for the High Court to have considered the appellant’s plea.
The Supreme Court dismissed the argument made by respondent No. 2/accused that the appellant/prosecutrix had been altering her statement in the supplementary statements. The Court pointed out that there was still sufficient evidence in the FIR to establish an offence under Section 376 of the IPC, even if the supplementary statements were disregarded.
The bench also noted that the appellant/prosecutrix had filed an intervention application in the petition for anticipatory bail filed by respondent No. 2/accused before the High Court, but was not given a chance to be heard. Although the State was present and represented in the proceedings, the appellant’s right to be heard should not have been ignored. Given that the prosecutrix is often the sole witness in cases of this nature, it was crucial for the High Court to have considered the appellant’s plea.
Source: https://lawtrend.in/important-judgment-of-sc-on-bail-cancellation-subsequent-addition-of-serious-offences-in-fir-is-a-ground-for-bail-cancellation/
