In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has underscored that courts should exercise restraint in granting bail in serious criminal cases, such as rape and murder, once the trial has commenced. The decision arose from a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., wherein the petitioner challenged the bail granted to the accused by the Rajasthan High Court.
OBSERVATIONS
The Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, highlighted the adverse impact that granting bail could have on the trial process. The Court observed that once the trial begins and witnesses are being examined, releasing the accused on bail could influence the fairness of the proceedings, particularly the testimony of the victim. The Bench stated: "Ordinarily 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."
CASE CONTEXT
The petitioner, who was the victim in the case, filed an FIR under Sections 376D and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Following the arrest of the accused, the trial court denied bail; however, the High Court later granted bail, citing discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach, pointing out that such discrepancies are not sufficient grounds to grant bail in serious offenses, especially when the victim's testimony and other key evidence remain unexamined. While emphasizing the importance of allowing trials to conclude without undue interference, the Supreme Court clarified that bail could be considered in cases where trials are unduly delayed for reasons beyond the accused's control. In the present case, the victim and her mother, a key eyewitness, had not yet been examined. Recognizing the potential for undue influence on witnesses, the Court imposed strict conditions on the accused, barring them from entering the victim's village and requiring them to provide an alternative residential address to the investigating officer.
The Supreme Court's ruling serves as a strong reminder of the judiciary's responsibility to ensure the integrity of trial proceedings, especially in cases involving grave offenses. By cautioning against premature bail, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to protecting victims and maintaining public trust in the judicial process.
However, the Supreme Court chose not to overturn the bail order but imposed stricter conditions, requiring the accused to stay away from the victim's village until the trial concludes. Additionally, the Court directed the accused to provide his updated residential address to the police.
Cause Title: X v/s State of Rajasthan and Another
Case No: SLP ( Criminal) 13378/2024
Date: November-27-2024
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
