Courts should be extremely cautious in entertaining bail applications by those accused of serious offences like murder, rape and dacoity after the trial of such cases has started and the prosecution has begun examining witnesses, the Supreme Court recently observed. A Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan added that it is only if the trial gets unduly delayed for no fault of the accused that the court may be justified in granting bail in such cases after the start of trial.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized the need for courts to exercise extreme caution while entertaining bail applications in cases involving grave offenses such as murder, rape, and dacoity, especially after the commencement of the trial.
The Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that granting bail in such cases should be considered only under exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial faces undue delays not attributable to the accused.
“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,”
-the Supreme Court noted in its order dated November 27.
The Court underscored the importance of allowing the trial process to reach its natural conclusion without interference that could potentially influence the course of justice.
“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,”
-the Court observed.
Courts Should Avoid Granting Bail After Witness Testimony or Based on Minor Discrepancies
The Bench expressed concern over a troubling trend where courts grant bail shortly after charges are framed or based on minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony.
“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,” the Court stated.
This cautionary stance came in the context of a case where the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by a rape victim challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused.
The High Court’s reasoning was based on perceived inconsistencies between the First Information Report (FIR) and the victim’s statement to the magistrate during the investigation.
Supreme Court’s Criticism of Lower Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court’s rationale for granting bail, stating:
“The High Court seems to have looked into few discrepancies in the FIR compared to the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an accused in a serious offence like rape.”
However, the apex court refrained from overturning the High Court’s bail order. Instead, it imposed stricter bail conditions to ensure the victim’s safety and maintain the integrity of the trial process.
These conditions included barring the accused from entering the victim’s village until the trial concludes and requiring him to provide his updated residential address to the police.
This Supreme Court ruling highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to prioritize the interests of justice in cases involving serious offenses. By discouraging premature bail orders and emphasizing the sanctity of the trial process, the judgment sets a critical precedent for lower courts to follow.
The Court’s observations underline the need for a careful balance between the rights of the accused and the pursuit of justice for victims, ensuring a fair and unbiased trial process.
CASE TITLE:
X v. State of Rajasthan and Another
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rape, Murder Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
