/2022 INSC 0990/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2022
Amy Mehta            ..Appellant(S)
Versus
State of Karnataka & Anr.          ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the High
Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bengaluru   in   Criminal   Petition   No.
3492/2022,   by   which,   the   High   Court   has   released
respondent   No.   2   herein   on   bail   in   connection   with   an
FIR/Crime   No.   8/2022   registered   with   Laxmipura   Police
Station,   Mysuru   City   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Sections   376,   354,   328   and   120B   of   IPC,   the   original
informant/complainant/prosecutrix/victim   has   preferred
the present appeal. 
1

2. We have heard Ms. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant,   Shri   Shubhranshu
Padhi,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State
and Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on   behalf   of   respondent   No.   2   –   accused.   We   have   gone
through   and   perused   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   releasing   respondent   No.   2   on
bail. 
2.1 From   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High   Court,   it   appears   that   what   has   weighed   with   the
High   Court   is   that   the   complaint   was   filed   after   five   days
and   the   allegations   that   the   accused   had   mixed   some
substance in the drinks that made her lose consciousness
and   thereafter,   he   committed   the   offence   on   intoxicating
her and subjected her to the sexual act, is a matter of trial
and   that   the   accused   is   in   custody   from   11.02.2022   and
there   is   no   need   of   further   custodial   trial.   The   relevant
observations   made   in   paragraph   6   of   the   impugned   order
while  releasing  respondent  No. 2 – accused on  bail are as
under: ­ 
2

“6.   Having   heard   the   respective   counsel
appearing for  the parties and also on perusal of
the   material   available   on   record,   the   Court   has
to   take   note   of   the   contents   of   the   allegations
and   also   the   complaint   is   filed   after   five   days,
wherein   an   allegation   is   made   that   this
petitioner   mixed   some   substance   in   the   drinks
to   loose   her   conscious   and   thereafter   he
committed   the   offence   and   the   fact   that   both   of
them   went   to  Bopy’s   Bar   &  Restaurant   in  order
to take food and also had alcohol. Having taken
note   of   the   said   fact   into   consideration   whether
intoxicating  her  subjected  her  to sexual  act   is  a
matter   of   trial   and   this   petitioner   is   in   custody
from   11.02.2022   and   no   need   of   further
custodial  trial.   Hence,  it   is  a   fit   case  to  exercise
the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject
to   imposing   certain   conditions   to   protect   and
safeguard the interest of the prosecution.”
2.2 However,   the   High   Court   has   failed   to   appreciate   the
allegations in the FIR that immediately on the occurrence,
when   the   prosecutrix/victim   regained   consciousness,   she
first went to the hospital and thereafter, tried to lodge the
FIR   but   no   complaint   was   taken.   In   a   case   like   this,   the
High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that there
could have been some delay (though in the present case, it
may   not   be   said   that   there   was   any   inordinate   delay   in
lodging   the   FIR)   as   sometime   could   have   been   consumed
for the victim/prosecutrix to get out of the shock. Even the
3

said aspect is required to be considered at the time of the
trial. 
2.3 Even   otherwise,   from   the   reasoning   given,   it   appears   that
the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of
the   allegations   and   the   gravity   of   the   offences   alleged
against   the   accused.   It   is   reported   that   the   chargesheet
has   already   been   filed.   So,   whatever   material   has   been
collected   during   the   investigation   was   required   to   be
considered   by   the   High   Court   while   considering   the
application under Section 439 of Cr.PC. 
2.4 Even   the   observation   that   there   is   no   need   of   further
custodial trial is also not relevant aspect while considering
the   bail   application   under   Section   439   of   Cr.P.C.     The
same   may   have   some   relevance   while   considering   the
application for anticipatory bail.    
2.5 Having   regard   to   the   fact   that   while   releasing   respondent
No. 2 – accused on bail the High Court has not taken into
consideration the relevant aspects which are required to be
kept   in   mind   while   considering   the   bail   application,
4

namely,   seriousness   of   the   offence   alleged;   material
collected   during   the   investigation;   statement   of   the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, etc., the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.   Considering   the   fact   that   the   chargesheet
has   already   been   filed,   the   accused   is   already   charge­
sheeted and the relevant material is also now a part of the
chargesheet, the same is required to be considered by  the
High   Court.   Therefore,   the   matter   ought   to   be   remitted   to
the High Court to consider the bail application afresh and
pass   appropriate   orders   after   considering   the   relevant
material/evidence collected during the investigation which
are now a part of the chargesheet. 
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   Appeal   Succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 2
–   accused   on   bail,   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside
and   is   accordingly   quashed   and   set   aside.   The   matter   is
remitted   to   the   High   Court   to   decide   the   bail   application
afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits after
5

perusing   the   material/evidence   collected   during   the
investigation which are now a part of the chargesheet and
upon taking into consideration the relevant aspects which
are required to be kept in mind while examining the prayer
for bail. 
4. As   the  impugned  judgment   and   order   passed  by   the  High
Court   releasing   respondent   No.   2   –   accused   on   bail   has
been   set   aside,   respondent   No.   2   –   accused   is   directed   to
surrender   before   the   concerned   Court/Jail   Authority
within a period of one week from today and only thereafter,
the   High   Court   shall   decide   and   dispose   of   the   bail
application   afresh,   as   observed   hereinabove,   at   the
earliest. With this, the present appeal is allowed.   
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI, 
NOVEMBER 17, 2022.
6