Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1106

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
X – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024
ZDecided on : 27-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sashank Kumar Sourav, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
Grant of bail – Ordinarily, in serious offences, once trial commences and prosecution starts examining its witnesses, Court should be loath in entertaining bail application of accused – Once trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in conviction of accused or acquittal of accused.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Rape charge – Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once trial commences and prosecution starts examining its witnesses, Court should be loath in entertaining bail application of accused – Once trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in conviction of accused or acquittal of accused – The moment High Court exercises its discretion in favour of accused and orders release of accused on bail by looking into deposition of victim, it will have its own impact on pending trial when it comes to appreciating oral evidence of victim – It is only in the event if trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on part of accused, Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of accused to have speedy trial has been infringed – In case on hand, victim is yet to be examined – Her mother who is an eye-witness has also not been examined so far – High Court seems to have looked few discrepancies in FIR compared to statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Code – This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of accused in a serious offence like rape – However, at this point of time, impugned order passed by High Court should not be disturbed – Without disturbing order of bail passed by High Court, stern conditions imposed against order granting bail to accused-respondent. (Paras 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20)
Facts of the case:
First Information Report came to be lodged by petitioner – herein dated 18-09-2023 against Respondent No.2 – herein and a co-accused for offence punishable under Section 376D and Section 342 of Indian Penal Code. High Court took into consideration some discrepancies emanating between FIR and statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Code. High Court was persuaded to release Respondent No.2 – herein on bail.
Findings of Court:
Having regard to nature of alleged crime, it will be in fitness of things if Trial Court gives some priority to Sessions Case No.53/2023 and try to dispose it of within a period of three months from today.
Result : Special Leave Petition disposed of.

ORDER :

1. This petition arises from the impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 12-02-2024 in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1351/2024 by which the bail application filed by the Respondent No.2 – herein (original accused) came to be allowed and the Respondent No.2 was ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

2. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report came to be lodged by the petitioner – herein dated 18-09-2023 against the Respondent No.2 – herein and a co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 376D and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR bearing No.83/2023 was registered with Police Station Nachna, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. The Respondent No.2 – herein and the co-accused were arrested in connection with the alleged offence. The co-accused was ordered to be enlarged on bail long time back.

4. It appears that after the FIR was registered, the statement of the victim, i.e., the petitioner – herein was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

6. The criminal case being committed to the Court of Sessions came to be registered as the Sessions Case No.53/2023 pending as on date in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pokaran (Jaisalmer).

7. The prosecution has examined one witness so far.

8. In the midst of the trial, the Respondent No.2 – herein preferred a bail application before the Trial Court. The Trial Court declined to release the accused on bail.

9. The accused went before the High Court and prayed for bail.

10. The High Court took into consideration some discrepancies emanating between the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code. The High Court was persuaded to release the Respondent No.2 – herein on bail.

11. Having regard to such discrepancies in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, the operative part of the impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:-

“Para 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as amed in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.”

12. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner, i.e., the victim is here before us with the present petition.

13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State. The Respondent No.2 – accused although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present before this Court either in-person or through an Advocate and oppose this petition.

14. 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.

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.

16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document