"Supreme Court Sets Conditions on Bail to Protect Fair Trial in Rape Case"
➡️ This is a *case where (Victim)Petitioner 'X' lodged an FIR in September 2023 at Police Station Nachna, District Jaisalmer, for offenses U/s 376D and 342 IPC against Respondent and a co-accused.
➡️The accused were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed after investigation. The case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pokaran.
➡️During the trial, only one witness had been examined. Second Respondent's bail plea was rejected by the Trial Court but granted by the High Court based on discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC.
►The petitioner (victim) challenged before the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court's decision granting bail to Second Respondent, arguing that discrepancies in statements were not sufficient grounds to release the accused, especially in a serious offense like rape.
➡️The primary legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused despite the seriousness of the alleged offense and ongoing trial proceedings.
➡️On behalf of the Victim it was contended that the High Court's reliance on discrepancies between the FIR and the Section 164 CrPC statement was inappropriate.
→The release of the accused could influence the trial and intimidate witnesses, as the accused and victim reside in the same village.
➡️ Despite being served notice, neither the accused nor their counsel appeared before the Supreme Court to oppose the petition.
➡️The Apex Court noted an emerging trend where bail is granted:
→ After charges are framed and before the victim’s examination.
→ Upon finding minor discrepancies in the victim’s evidence.
➡️The Apex Court observed that the practice of granting bail, when charges are framed and before the victim's examination, undermines the trial process, especially in serious offences like rape.
→The High Court failed to consider the proximity of the accused and victim’s residences, increasing the likelihood of witness tampering.
➡️The Apex Court upheld the bail order of the High Court however, imposed additional conditions:
→The accused must not enter the victim’s village (Magriyan Ki Dhani, Jaisalmer) until the trial concludes.
→The accused must provide a new address to the investigating officer.
→The accused must not influence prosecution witnesses or contact the victim or her family.
→Directed the Trial Court to prioritize the case and dispose of it within three months.
*Case X v. State of Rajasthan & Another
Before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Mahadevan J
