Bail Should Not Be Granted Ordinarily In Serious Offences Like Rape & Murder Once Trial Starts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that in serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc., bail applications of the accused should not be ordinarily entertained by the Trial Courts and the High Courts.

"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," observed a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

"It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed," the bench added.

The Court was deciding an appeal filed by a victim in a rape case challenging the High Court's order granting bail to an accused. The High Court granted him bail citing certain discrepancies in the FIR and the Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim.

Disapproving of the High Court's approach and also the general trend followed by the Courts in such cases, the Supreme Court observed :

"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.

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 accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim."

The Supreme Court observed that the alleged discrepancies in the victim's statements could not have been a ground to grant bail especially when the victim was yet to be examined.

At the same time, the Court refrained from disturbing the bail granted by the High Court. Instead, it chose to impose additional conditions. It directed the accused not to enter the village of the victim and her mother till the completion of the trial. The accused was directed to furnish his new residential address to the police.

The Court also asked the trial court to prioritise this case and try to complete the trial within a period of three months.

Case : X v. State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Click here to read the judgment