UNION OF INDIA vs S.S.BEDI — Crl.A. No. 13/2013

Case under Section II-D. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010219162012

Filing Date

04-Jul-2012

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 13/2013

Diary Number

21916/2012

Order Date

29-Jul-2020

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2020 INSC 469

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 07-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-D

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA

    Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.S.S.BEDI

    Adv. SRIDHAR POTARAJU (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [Caveat]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Jul-2020

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 29-Jul-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 29-Jul-2020

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

  5. 21-Jul-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 21-Jul-2020

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

  7. 15-Jul-2020

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

  8. 29-Jul-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 29-Jul-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 20-Nov-2015
  11. 20-Nov-2015
  12. 15-Jul-2013
  13. 04-Jul-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 13/2013

  14. [ 2020 INSC 469 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: Union of India v. S.S. Bedi (Crl.A. No. 13/2013) The Supreme Court upheld Lt. Col. S.S. Bedi's conviction for sexually assaulting two female patients (under IPC Section 354), finding evidence that he inappropriately touched their private parts during medical examinations beyond what was medically necessary. The Court restored the original cashiering sentence (which the Armed Forces Tribunal had reduced to a Rs.50,000 fine), citing his reprehensible abuse of trust as a doctor, though it directed authorities to consider his service record and advanced age before initiating pension forfeiture proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case