Versus X. State of Rajasthan | Latest Decisions of the Supreme Court of India | Law Library

Versus X. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

(Special Permission Petition No. 13378, dated 2024 (Criminal))

1. This petition has been filed by the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature, Jodhpur, dated 12-02-2024 under SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1351/2024 and the bail application filed by Defendant No.2 – herein (the main defendant) is allowed and it is ordered that Defendant No.2 be released on bail pending trial.

2. From the materials recorded, it is revealed by the plaintiff – dated 18-09-2023 herein – Defendant No. 2 and a First Information Report appears to have been filed by another accused for the offense punishable under Section 376D. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR bearing No.83/2023 is registered at Nachna Police Station, Jaisalmer District, Rajasthan.

3. Defendant No.2 – herein and other defendants were arrested in connection with the alleged crime. It was decided to release the co-accused on bail long ago.

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

5. After the investigation was completed, a criminal complaint was filed.

6. The criminal case transferred to the Magistrate’s Court has been registered as Sessions Case No. 53/2023, which is pending before the Additional District Court and Magistrate Pokaran (Jaisalmer) as on date.

7. The prosecution has examined one witness so far.

8. In the middle of the hearing, Defendant No. 2 chose to apply for bail before the Magistrates’ Court. The court rejected the suspect’s release on bail.

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

10. The High Court took note of certain inconsistencies arising between the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Act. The High Court was persuaded to grant bail to Respondent No.2.

11. In view of such inconsistencies in the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Act, the relevant part of the impugned order passed by the High Court is as follows:-

“Para 9. Accordingly, the application for instant bail under Section 439 of Cr. PC is allowed and bail is granted on the condition that the accused-petitioner as amended in the case title furnishes a personal guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- in the amount of Rs.25,000 each.” with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge to appear before the court concerned on all dates of hearing on which he is summoned, do so.”

12. In such cases mentioned above, the plaintiff, that is, the victim, is before us with the current petition.

13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Respondent No. 2 – the accused has chosen not to appear before this Court in person or through an Advocate and to oppose this petition, despite being served with notice by this Court.

14. Often rape, murder, womanizing, etc. In serious crimes such as, once the trial commences and the prosecution begins to examine their witnesses, the Court, be it the Magistrates Court or the High Court, should be reluctant to grant the accused’s application for bail. .

15. Over a period of time we came to realize two things: (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and immediately before the victim is examined by the prosecution before the trial court or (ii) bail is granted Recording of the victim’s oral statement by examining some inconsistencies in the statement and testing the credibility of the victim allowed after completion.

16. We are of the opinion that the said practice is not a correct practice which the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial has begun, it must be allowed to reach a final conclusion that could lead to the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. When the High Court exercises its discretion in favor of the accused and considers the statement of the victim and decides to grant bail to the accused, it will have its own impact on the ongoing trial when it comes to appreciation of the oral evidence of the accused. victim. However, if the trial is delayed unduly and without any fault of the defendant, the Court may decide to release the defendant on bail on the grounds that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. was violated.

17. In the present case the victim has not yet been examined. According to the prosecution, his mother, who is an eyewitness, has not been questioned so far. The Supreme Court appears to have examined several inconsistencies in the FIR as compared to the victim statement recorded under Section 164 of the Act. This cannot be a good justification for exercising discretion in favor of the defendant in a serious crime such as rape.

18. However, we are now of the view that we should not quash the impugned order passed by the Supreme Court. At the same time, we must impose appropriate conditions to ensure that Defendant No. 2 herein and the other defendants do not influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with evidence in any way. The Supreme Court should have been conscious of this fact even while granting bail to the accused. The High Court considered it appropriate to ask Defendant No. 2, the defendant herein, to furnish payment security of only Rs. 50,000/- without any qualifying conditions.

19. We wonder whether the Supreme Court was informed that the victim, her mother and both defendants reside in the same village. Magriyan Ki Dhani Satyaya, Jaisalmer District, Rajasthan.

20. In such circumstances, without reversing the bail order passed by the High Court, we direct that Respondent No. 2 shall not enter the said village until the trial is completed. Since we have asked the accused No. 2 not to enter the village, he will inform the investigating officer attached to the concerned police station about the address of his new residence. Defendant No. 2 shall not in any way attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses or attempt to contact the victim and her family, directly or indirectly.

21. Considering the nature of the alleged crime, it would be appropriate for the Supreme Court to give some priority to Sessions case No. 53/2023 and try to conclude the case within three months from today. .

22. We clarify that what has been observed by us in this order are only prima facie observations and are not to be considered as the expression of a final opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

23. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the above terms.

24. Pending applications, if any, will also be destroyed.

……………………J. (JB Pardiwala)

……………………J. (R. Mahadevan)

New Delhi;

November 27, 2024