Back
Bail In Rape Case Cannot Be Granted Without Hearing Prosecutrix:
Court Sets Aside , Remands for Victim's Participation
In a significant ruling reinforcing , has held that bail in rape cases cannot be granted without affording the prosecutrix an opportunity to be heard. Justice Saurabh Banerjee set aside a trial court order that granted to an accused under and , without issuing any notice to the victim.
The Court observed that the grant of bail within just three days of arrest, without involving the prosecutrix, was a that vitiated the order. The bail plea has now been remanded to the trial court for , with a direction to hear the victim before deciding.
Three-Day Bail, No Victim Notice
The case stems from an FIR registered at on , based on the complaint of the prosecutrix, Ms G. She alleged that the accused, her neighbour, had established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage since . The FIR was registered while the prosecutrix was in in connection with another case—an acid attack on the accused's fiancée, which she claimed was a false implication.
The accused was arrested on and produced before the trial court, which granted him on —a span of only three days. Crucially, the prosecutrix was never informed of the and was not heard.
The : A
The High Court underscored that —which mirrors —makes the presence of the informant or a person authorised by her obligatory at the hearing of bail applications in cases involving (which correspond to Sections 376(3) and similar offences). 's own Practice Direction No.67/Rules/DHC dated , prescribes how the investigating officer must inform the victim about a .
Relying on 's landmark judgment in , Justice Banerjee noted that victims have to participate at every stage of criminal proceedings—from investigation through appeal. The top court had recognized that the victim's cannot be restricted to just the trial stage; it extends to bail hearings and other pre-trial proceedings.
The High Court also cited 's decision in , which held that the presence of the State in the proceedings does not dilute the victim's individual right to be represented and heard. In that case, the apex court emphasised that in crimes where the victim is the , her voice cannot be silenced.
Setting the Record Straight
The Court observed that the trial court's failure to issue notice to the prosecutrix was a serious . Even if the accused had a strong case on merits, the order could not stand because the victim was denied a hearing.
Justice Banerjee quoted:
“Any victim like the prosecutrix herein who set the state machinery in motion by filing a complaint under / against the accused herein, is to be given an opportunity of participating at all stage(s) of the criminal proceedings, including, whence the application for grant of was filed by the accused before the learned Trial Court.”
The Court further noted that the grant of within three days, under such circumstances, called for the order to be set aside.
Final Order and Implications
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated , and remanded No.625/2026 to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court has been directed to decide the bail plea preferably within two weeks, after providing an to the prosecutrix.
However, to avoid prejudice to the accused, the Court clarified that he shall not be pending the . The fresh bail order must be passed on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present judgment.
This ruling reinforces that victim participation is not optional but a mandatory requirement in serious criminal cases. It serves as a reminder to trial courts to strictly comply with the of hearing the victim before granting bail in sexual offence cases.
Key Observations
- : Victims have a legally vested at every step post the occurrence of an offence.
- : The prosecutrix's cannot be curtailed merely because the State is represented.
- Section 483(2) BNSS makes victim presence obligatory at bail hearings in specified sexual offences.
- Practice Direction ensures victims are informed of bail applications.
