Summary
On the victim's petition against bail granted to an accused in a gang-rape case during trial, the Supreme Court said that once trial in a serious offence has begun, courts should be slow to grant bail by looking at discrepancies in the victim's statements, unless the trial is unduly delayed through no fault of the accused. It did not cancel the bail, but barred the accused from entering the village where the victim lived and directed the trial court to try to finish the trial within three months.
Issues
- Whether, in a serious offence such as rape, a court should grant bail after the trial has commenced by relying on discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court's bail order, which imposed no conditions, should be disturbed or supplemented with protective conditions.
Provisions considered
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had allowed bail under this section on a personal bond with sureties alone. The Supreme Court held that discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's Section 164 statement were not a good ground for exercising this discretion in a rape case, and that conditions protecting witnesses should have been imposed. It then imposed such conditions itself. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18, 20)
- Sections 376D and 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860The offences in the FIR against the accused and a co-accused. The Court relied on their serious nature in stating its approach to bail once trial has begun. (¶¶ 2, 14, 17)
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The victim's statement had been recorded by a Magistrate under this section. The High Court relied on discrepancies between this statement and the FIR to grant bail, and the Supreme Court held that this was not a proper ground in a serious offence like rape. (¶¶ 4, 10, 17)
Held
- In serious offences such as rape, murder or dacoity, once the trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses are being examined, the trial court and the High Court should be reluctant to entertain the accused's bail application. (¶ 14)
- The Court disapproved two practices: granting bail after charge is framed but just before the victim is examined, and granting bail after the victim's evidence is recorded by testing her credibility on minor discrepancies in her deposition. Bail granted on the victim's deposition affects how that evidence is later appreciated, so the trial should normally run to its conclusion. Bail during trial may be justified where the trial is unduly delayed through no fault of the accused, infringing the right to a speedy trial. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Here the victim and her mother, said to be an eyewitness, had not yet been examined. The High Court's reliance on discrepancies between the FIR and the Section 164 statement was not a good ground for bail in a rape case, and it should have imposed conditions against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence instead of requiring only sureties. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Without disturbing the bail, the Court directed the accused, who lived in the same village as the victim and her mother, not to enter that village until the trial ends, to give his new address to the investigating officer, and not to influence any prosecution witness or contact the victim or her family, directly or indirectly. Its observations were declared prima facie only. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 22)
Result
Special leave petition disposed of; bail not cancelled but made subject to conditions barring the accused from the village, requiring him to give his new address to the investigating officer and prohibiting contact with the victim, her family and witnesses; trial court asked to give the sessions case priority and try to decide it within three months.