Subsequent Addition of Serious Offences to FIR can lead to Cancellation of Bail: Supreme Court
- Published on: Nov 30, -0001
The Supreme Court held that the subsequent addition of more serious offences to a First Information Report (FIR) can be a basis for the court to cancel the bail granted earlier.
Case Background:
The case pertains to a 'casting couch' incident where a model alleged that a businessman raped her after luring her with offers of modeling assignments. The FIR was initially registered for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-B, and 506 IPC. The victim later filed a complaint with higher police authorities, stating that the investigation was not proceeding on the right track. The police then included the offence of rape (Section 376 IPC) in the FIR and moved to cancel the bail granted to the accused based on the victim's supplementary statement.
Issue before the Court:
The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the subsequent addition of more serious offences to an FIR could be a circumstance for the court to cancel the bail granted to an accused.
Arguments of the Parties:
Senior Advocate R Basant represented the victim, while Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde represented the accused. The victim argued that the High Court did not consider the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, as well as the financial stature and position of the accused vis-a-vis the victim. She also argued that the High Court did not allow her to intervene in the bail application.
Verdict of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had been swayed by "star variations in the narration of the prosecutrix" and held that the addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where the court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody, even though an order of bail was earlier granted in his favor. The Court also noted that the accused could surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences. Additionally, the investigating agency is entitled to move the court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5) and 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court, which had granted bail to the accused in this case.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the subsequent addition of more serious offences to an FIR can be a circumstance for the court to cancel the bail granted by it. The Court also held that the victim of the crime has the right to be heard in the bail application of the accused. The Court criticized the High Court for not considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, as well as the financial stature and position of the accused vis-a-vis the victim, and for not allowing the victim to intervene in the bail application.
Abstract of the court ruling
The subsequent addition of more serious offences to an FIR can be a circumstance for the court to cancel the bail granted by it.
The accused can surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences.
The investigating agency is entitled to move the court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5) and 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The victim of the crime has the right to be heard in the bail application of the accused.
Case Title: Ms. X vs State of Maharashtra (CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 822-823 OF 2023)
The information provided is sourced from publicly available news feeds and is not exhaustive of subject matter, we accept no liability for any errors or omissions. For legal advice, please consult a legal expert. Contact us at legalhelp@avlegal.in or 9953470048.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROTECTION OF YOUR RIGHTS, AV LEGAL ALLIANCE LLP LOCATED IN CAPITAL OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI IS HERE TO HELP YOU.
.png)
.png)
.png)