New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stressed that the courts should be slow in entertaining the bail plea of the accused once the trial in serious offences commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses.
“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,” a bench, headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, said.
The bench, also comprising Justice R. Mahadevan, was hearing a special leave petition filed by the complainant-victim against the order of the Rajasthan High Court ordering the accused to be released on bail pending trial.
An FIR was lodged by the petitioner against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376D (gang rape) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code with police station Nachna of Rajasthan’s Jaisalmer.
In its impugned decision, the Rajasthan HC took into consideration some discrepancies emanating between the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and was persuaded to release the accused on bail.
The Supreme Court said that over a period of time, it noticed two things, 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.
“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 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 the 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 added.
However, the apex court clarified that only in the event that 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 the right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.
Deprecating the grant of bail to the accused in a serious offence like rape, it said that discrepancies in statements could not have been a “good ground” when the victim is yet to be examined and her mother, an eye-witness, has also not been examined so far.
However, the Supreme Court decided not to disturb the Rajasthan High Court order but proceeded to impose stringent conditions so as to ensure that the accused could not influence the prosecution witnesses or try to tamper with the evidence in any manner.
Noting that both the accused and victim are residents of the same village, it ordered the accused to not enter the village till the completion of the trial and asked him to furnish his new residence to the investigating officer attached to the police station concerned.
Further, the Supreme Court asked the trial court to give some priority to the case and try to dispose of it within a period of three months.
(IANS)
