CASE NAME: X v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The Supreme Court has noted that the Trial Courts and the High Courts should not typically consider the accused’s bail requests in cases involving heinous crimes like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. The bench, which included Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, noted that “normally in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.”

“On the grounds that the accused’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, the court may legitimately order his release on bail only if the trial is unduly delayed and that too for no fault of the accused,” the bench continued. The Court was making a decision on an appeal that a victim in a rape case had filed, contesting the High Court’s decision to grant an accused person bail. Citing certain differences between the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement and the FIR, the High Court granted him bail.

The Supreme Court made the following observation in disapproval of the High Court’s strategy and the broader pattern that the courts adopted in these cases: “Over time, we have observed two things: (i) bail is either granted after the charge is framed and shortly before the victim is scheduled to be questioned by the prosecution in front of the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted after the victim’s oral testimony has been fully recorded by examining a few inconsistencies in the deposition and thereby evaluating the victim’s credibility.

We believe that the aforementioned is not a proper procedure that the lower courts ought to follow. Once the trial has started, it should be given time to finish, which could lead to the accused being found guilty or not found guilty. The High Court will have an effect on the ongoing trial when it comes to valuing the victim’s oral testimony as soon as it uses its discretion in favor of the accused and grants the accused release on bail after considering the victim’s deposition.

The Supreme Court noted that, given that the victim had not yet been examined, the purported inconsistencies in the victim’s allegations could not have acted as justification for granting bail. However, the Court did not interfere with the bail that the High Court had granted. Rather, it decided to add more requirements. It ordered the accused to stay out of the victim’s and her mother’s village until the trial was over. The offender was instructed to provide the police with his new residential address. Additionally, the Court requested that the trial court give this matter top priority and attempt to finish the trial in three months.