Supreme Court denies relief to Mumbai man in nightclub assault case that led to woman’s miscarriage

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court order cancelling the bail granted to a man accused of assaulting a woman employee of a Mumbai nightclub inside a lift, an incident that allegedly resulted in her miscarriage.

A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih held that the high court’s conclusions were “legally correct” and found no reason to entertain the accused’s challenge to the cancellation of bail.

“The conclusions drawn by the High Court are legally correct, and as such, the impugned order judgment does not warrant any interference,” the bench said on December 29.

The case relates to  an incident that allegedly took place in the early hours of November 15, when the victim, who was working as a guest relations manager at a Mumbai club, was returning home after completing her shift at around 1.30am.

According to the prosecution, when she entered a lift, she was allegedly assaulted by the petitioner, who was accompanied by two other men and a woman.

It is alleged that the petitioner, who was in an inebriated condition, inappropriately pointed a laser torch at her.

When she objected, he allegedly abused her and struck her on the head with the torch, while another accused attempted to hit her with a liquor bottle.

The woman is stated to have pleaded with the accused to stop, informing them that she was pregnant, but despite this, she was allegedly hit on her stomach.

After bouncers intervened, the victim was taken to a hospital, where she discovered that she had suffered a miscarriage. At the time of the incident, she was in the eighth week of pregnancy.

An FIR was registered against the petitioner at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections Sections 74 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 89 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), 118(1) (concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The trial court subsequently granted him regular bail on the ground that the police had not complied with Sections 35(3) (notice of appearance) and 48 (obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest)of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 failing to follow due procedure.

Challenging this order, the victim approached the high court, which cancelled the bail, holding that it had been granted on technical grounds despite the accused seeking bail on merits.

Aggrieved by the high court’s decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave appearing for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false and claimed that the case was one of extortion.

He submitted that the victim’s sister-in-law had allegedly made repeated calls to the petitioner demanding Rs 10 crore and threatening that he would not be granted bail if the demand was not met.

The counsel also requested that the sessions court be directed to consider the petitioner’s bail application without insisting on his surrender. However, the bench declined to issue such a direction.

Upholding the high court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that the trial court had committed a “patent error” in granting bail on technical grounds without considering the prayer for bail on merits.

It said, “The Sessions Court committed a patent error in entertaining these grounds and allowing the bail application of the petitioner.”

The court further said that the high court rightly pointed out that the petitioner’s prayer for bail on merits was not considered by the trial court.

It, however, allowed the accused to file a fresh bail application on merits.

Disposing of the special leave petition, the bench directed that the petitioner may surrender within one week, as directed by the high court.

It also said that once he applies for bail on merits before the trial court, it shall consider the application independently and without being influenced by the high court judgment or the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the plea, the trial court shall decide the bail application expeditiously, preferably within one week .

The apex court declined to interfere with the high court’s order cancelling bail and disposed of all pending applications in the matter.