The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it is not a correct practice to grant bail to accused just after framing of charges or recording of the oral evidence of the victim due to some discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, the trial court and the High Court should ordinarily be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc, once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses.
"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. 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 bench said.
The bench opined 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.
The court said over a period of time, it has noticed two things, ie 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 this is not a correct practice that the courts below should adopt," the bench said.
The court was considering a woman's plea assailing the Rajasthan High Court's order of bail passed on February 12, 2024 one of the co-accused in a case of gang rape lodged on September 18, 2023.
The High Court allowed the bail, after taking into consideration some discrepancies between the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the case, the victim and her mother, an eye witness were yet to be examined, the bench said.
"The High Court seems to have looked into few discrepancies. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an accused in a serious offence like rape," the bench said.
Without disturbing the bail order, the court directed the accused not to enter the village till the completion of the trial, as he was resident of the same village as of the woman-victim.
The court also imposed conditions like the accused would not influence the prosecution witnesses or try to tamper with the evidence, which the High Court failed to record in its order.