Courts must be slow to grant bail in rape, murder cases once trial starts: Supreme Court

Courts should be extremely cautious in entertaining bail applications by those accused of serious offences like murder, rape and dacoity after the trial of such cases has started and the prosecution has begun examining witnesses, the Supreme Court recently observed [X v. State of Rajasthan and Another]..A Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan added that it is only if the trial gets unduly delayed for no fault of the accused that the court may be justified in granting bail in such cases after the start of trial."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 November 27 order said. .The Court explained that once the trial starts, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, without bail orders that may unduly sway the course of the trial one way or another. "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," the Court observed. .Ordinarily in serious offences, once trial commences, the Court should be loath in entertaining bail applications.Supreme Court.The Court also criticised the trend of granting bail shortly after the framing of charges in trial or after witness testimony is recorded, by merely citing minor discrepancies in the victim's testimony. "Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) 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 (ii) 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," it observed. .The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a victim in a rape case challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision to grant bail to an accused. The High Court had granted the accused bail citing discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) and the statement given by the victim to a magistrate during investigation. The Supreme Court disapproved the High Court's approach, observing,"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.".However, the top court refrained from setting aside the bail order, and instead imposed additional bail conditions on the accused, including that he must not to enter the victim's village till the completion of the trial. The Court also directed the accused to furnish his new residential address to the police..[Read Order]