The Supreme Court of India has reiterated the need for judicial restraint in Securing Bail in Serious Crimes like rape, murder, and dacoity, especially after the trial begins. Emphasizing that bail should not disrupt the course of justice, the Court underscored that it is only in cases of undue delay, where the accused is not at fault, that courts may consider bail in such serious matters.

Tightening the Leeway for Bail

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, in X v. State of Rajasthan and Another, observed that once the trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses are being examined, courts must exercise extreme caution in granting bail. The bench stated:
“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 judgment further explained that once a trial begins, it should progress to its logical conclusion without undue interference. Bail decisions at this stage could influence the trial’s trajectory, particularly when oral evidence and victim testimony are being considered.

Questioning Trends in Bail Practices

The Court took issue with the growing trend of granting bail based on minor inconsistencies in victim statements or at the early stages of the trial, shortly after charges are framed. Highlighting the negative impact on ongoing trials, the Court noted: “Bail is often granted after the victim’s deposition or by scrutinizing minor discrepancies in their testimony. This practice undermines the credibility of the judicial process and should be discouraged.”

Case Study: Discrepancies Not Grounds for Bail

The ruling came in response to an appeal by a rape victim challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused. The High Court relied on discrepancies between the victim’s First Information Report (FIR) and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Disapproving this approach, the Supreme Court held that such minor inconsistencies should not form the basis for granting bail in heinous offences. However, rather than revoking the bail order, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including prohibiting the accused from entering the victim’s village until the trial concludes.

Balancing Fair Trial and Victim Protection

This judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that trials in serious criminal cases remain untainted by premature bail decisions. Courts are now advised to focus on the integrity of the judicial process, considering bail only when procedural delays become excessive and unavoidable for the accused.

The Supreme Court’s stance seeks to strike a balance between protecting victims and upholding the principle of fair trial, setting a precedent for cautious discretion in Securing Bail in Serious Crimes matters involving grave offences.

Also Read: Case Report: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) [LiveLaw (SC) 875]