Supreme Court Imposes Restrictions on Bail in Rape Case: X vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) INSC 909 (27 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 909

Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.

Can discrepancies between a First Information Report (FIR) and a victim’s statement justify granting bail in a serious offense like rape, especially after the trial has begun? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, expressing concerns about the practice of granting bail based on minor inconsistencies during the trial phase. This case involves a rape allegation where the High Court granted bail to the accused after the trial had commenced, citing discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the matter.

Case Background

On 18 September 2023, the petitioner (victim) filed a First Information Report (FIR No. 83/2023) at Police Station Nachna, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, against the Respondent No. 2 and a co-accused. The FIR alleged offenses punishable under Section 376D (gang rape) and Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both the Respondent No. 2 and the co-accused were arrested. The co-accused was granted bail earlier. Subsequently, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before a Magistrate. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, registered as Sessions Case No. 53/2023 at the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pokaran (Jaisalmer). The prosecution has examined one witness so far.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent No. 2 initially applied for bail before the Trial Court, which was rejected. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which granted bail on 12 February 2024, citing discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court ordered the release of Respondent No. 2 on bail, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each. Aggrieved by this order, the victim filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of several key legal provisions:

• Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of gang rape and prescribes the punishment for it.
• Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of wrongful confinement and prescribes the punishment for it.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements before a Magistrate during the course of investigation.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions to grant bail to an accused person.

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner (victim) argued that the High Court should not have granted bail to the accused, especially in a serious offense like rape, merely based on discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The counsel emphasized that the trial had already commenced, and the victim was yet to be examined. The counsel for the State supported the petitioner’s arguments.

The Respondent No. 2, despite being served with notice, chose not to appear before the Supreme Court, either in person or through an advocate.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the following implicitly:

• Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in a rape case based on discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly after the trial had commenced.
• Whether the High Court should have considered the potential impact of granting bail on the ongoing trial and the victim’s testimony.
• Whether appropriate conditions were imposed while granting bail to ensure the safety of the victim and the integrity of the trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its reasoning other than the provisions mentioned in the Legal Framework section. However, the Court’s reasoning was based on general principles of criminal law and the need to ensure a fair trial, especially in cases involving serious offenses like rape.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court did not cite any case laws. However, it interpreted the provisions in the following manner:

• Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court noted the seriousness of the offense of gang rape and the need to ensure a fair trial.
• Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court considered the offense of wrongful confinement as part of the charges against the accused.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court emphasized that discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement under this section should not be the basis for granting bail at this stage of the trial.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court acknowledged the High Court’s power to grant bail but emphasized that this power should be exercised judiciously, especially in serious offenses and after the trial has commenced.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure a fair trial, especially in serious offenses like rape. The Court was concerned about the potential impact of granting bail based on minor discrepancies, particularly after the trial had commenced. The Court emphasized that such a practice could undermine the credibility of the victim’s testimony and influence the outcome of the trial. The Court also highlighted the importance of protecting the victim and ensuring that the accused does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• “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 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 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.”

The Court considered the potential impact of granting bail on the victim’s testimony and the overall fairness of the trial. It also took into account the fact that the victim and the accused resided in the same village, which could lead to potential intimidation or tampering with evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Granting bail in serious offenses like rape should be approached with caution, especially after the trial has commenced.
• Discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement should not be the sole basis for granting bail during the trial.
• Courts should consider the potential impact of granting bail on the victim’s testimony and the overall fairness of the trial.
• Appropriate conditions should be imposed while granting bail to ensure the safety of the victim and the integrity of the trial.
• Trial courts should expedite trials in serious offenses to ensure timely justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Respondent No. 2 shall not enter the village where the victim resides until the completion of the trial.
• The Respondent No. 2 shall furnish the address of his new residence to the investigating officer.
• The Respondent No. 2 shall not influence any of the prosecution witnesses or contact the victim and her family.
• The Trial Court shall give priority to the Sessions Case No. 53/2023 and try to dispose it of within a period of three months.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that bail in serious offenses like rape should not be granted lightly, especially after the trial has commenced. The Court’s emphasis on protecting the victim and ensuring a fair trial highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The judgment also sets a precedent for lower courts to be more cautious in granting bail based on minor discrepancies in the evidence, particularly during the trial phase.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the issue of granting bail in a rape case after the trial had commenced. The Court expressed its disapproval of the practice of granting bail based on minor discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement, especially at this stage of the proceedings. The Court imposed additional conditions on the bail granted by the High Court and directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial and protecting the victim in serious offenses.