Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 - Grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – Accused enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when only one witness was examined and the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the victim is yet to be examined and her mother who, is an eye-witness has also not been examined so far – High Court seems to have looked into few discrepancies in the FIR compared to the statement of victim recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. – This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an accused in a serious offence like rape – At this point of time, the impugned order passed by the High Court not disturbed, however, appropriate conditions imposed so as to ensure that the accused and the co-accused do not influence the prosecution witnesses or try to tamper with the evidence in any manner – Since the victim and her mother as well as both the accused are residing in the very same village, the accused directed not to enter the said village till the completion of the trial. [Paras 17-20]
Judicial deprecation – Bail application of the accused in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc. – Trial Court or the High Court to be reluctant in entertaining the bail application – However, 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 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 – Propriety:
Held: 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 – 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 – 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. [Para 16]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.