“Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, (1980) 2 SCC 565 holds the field for number of years and the same has been followed by all Courts in the country. Therefore, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, (2011) 1 SCC 694 is not correct law in light of the observations made in Paragraphs 42 and 43 in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia. Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, (1996) 1 SCC 667 is also not good law and is against and just contrary to the decision of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, which is a Constitution Bench Judgment.”

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Sushila Aggarwal v. NCT of Delhi, [SLP (Criminal) Nos. 7281-7282 of 2017].

“I have gone through the reasoning and conclusions of Justice M.R. Shah. I am in agreement with his Judgment. However, I am supplementing the conclusions arrived at by Shah J with this separate Judgment since I am of the view, while there is no disagreement on the essential reasoning, some aspects need to be discussed in addition.”

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Sushila Aggarwal v. NCT of Delhi, [SLP (Criminal) Nos. 7281-7282 of 2017].

_____

Also see, Nathu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 2021] decided on 28.05.2021 and Prashant Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2021] decided on 08.10.2021.

_____

Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 17 SCC 326; Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743; Sushila Aggarwal v. NCT of Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 1; Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 753.

Ms. X, model by profession, claims to have been exposed to horrors of Casting Couch Syndrome. 

The nature and gravity of offence has been disregarded. The financial stature, position and standing of Accused-Respondent No. 2 has been ignored. High Court has granted anticipatory bail having been swayed by ‘star variations in narration’. We find, there was still sufficient material.  

Also, in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 Justice Surya Kant made pertinent observations relating to a victim’s right to be heard. Ms. X was not afforded a hearing. At least a perusal of Second Impugned Order does not reflect said position.

The anticipatory bail to Accused-Respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained.

– Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 822-823 of 2023] decided on 17.03.2023.