The Supreme Court of India has firmly refused to grant any relief to a man whose bail was cancelled in a harrowing case of assault on a pregnant woman inside a Mumbai nightclub, an incident that tragically resulted in her miscarriage. The apex court, on December 29, 2025, endorsed the Bombay High Court's decision, calling the trial court's initial grant of bail a "patent error" made on purely technical grounds.
The Horrific Incident at a Mumbai Nightclub
The case stems from a deeply disturbing event in the early hours of November 15. The victim, who was employed as a guest relations manager at a club in Mumbai, was heading home after her shift ended around 1:30 AM. As she entered a lift, she was allegedly confronted by the petitioner and three other companions.
According to the prosecution's account, the accused, who was in an inebriated state, first pointed a laser torch at her inappropriately. When she objected, he reportedly abused her and struck her on the head with the same torch. Another accused allegedly tried to hit her with a liquor bottle. The woman pleaded for mercy, informing the group of her pregnancy. Despite her desperate pleas, she was allegedly hit on her stomach.
Following intervention by the club's bouncers, the woman was rushed to a hospital. There, she received the devastating news that she had suffered a miscarriage. She was in her eighth week of pregnancy at the time of the assault.
Legal Journey: From Bail to Supreme Court
An FIR was registered at the Amboli Police Station in Mumbai under multiple sections of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including assault to outrage modesty, causing miscarriage without consent, and common intention. However, the trial court granted the accused regular bail. It did so on the technical ground that the police had failed to comply with certain procedural notices under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Challenging this, the victim approached the Bombay High Court. The High Court cancelled the bail, observing that it was granted on technicalities while the accused's prayer for bail on the merits of the case was never considered. Aggrieved, the accused moved the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, argued that the allegations were false and part of an extortion plot. He claimed the victim's sister-in-law had demanded Rs 10 crore, threatening that bail would be denied if the money was not paid.
Supreme Court's Decisive Observations and Order
A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih was unmoved by these arguments. The bench found the High Court's conclusions to be "legally correct" and saw no reason to interfere.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the sessions court, stating it committed a clear error by entertaining technical grounds for bail without evaluating the case on its merits. The bench clarified that while it was upholding the bail cancellation, the accused was at liberty to file a fresh bail application on merits before the trial court.
The court disposed of the petition, directing the accused to surrender within one week as per the High Court's order. It further directed that if he applies for bail afresh, the trial court must consider it independently and expeditiously, preferably within one week, without being influenced by the higher courts' rulings in this specific proceeding.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's focus on substantive justice over procedural technicalities, especially in cases involving serious allegations of violence against women.
