We have gone through and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing respondent
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
No 2 on bail.
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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
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.
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, 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.
The matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the bail application afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits after 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.
SHAH)…………………………………J.
Case Title: AMY MEHTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2022 INSC 1215)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001981-001981 / 2022
