The Supreme Court stated that minor differences between the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC are not a valid reason to grant bail in a rape case.
The Supreme Court noted that minor differences between the FIR and the victim’s statement are not sufficient grounds to grant discretion in favor of the accused in serious cases like rape. This appeal was brought to the Supreme Court following a decision by the Rajasthan High Court, which allowed a bail application from the original accused, leading to his release while awaiting trial. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan expressed concern about whether the High Court considered that both the victim and her mother, as well as the accused, live in the same village, Magriyan Ki Dhani Satyaya, in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
AOR Shantanu Sagar represented the Petitioner, while AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar represented the Respondent. The FIR was filed by the petitioner in 2023 against Respondent No.2 and another co-accused for offenses under Section 376D and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. When the bail issue reached the High Court, the Court observed the inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. This led the High Court to grant bail to Respondent No.2. The Bench emphasized that in serious crimes like rape, murder, and dacoity, once the trial begins and witnesses are examined, both the Trial Court and the High Court should be hesitant to consider bail applications from the accused.
The Bench noted that in similar situations, bail is usually granted either after the charges are framed and just before the victim’s testimony in court, or after the victim’s oral evidence is recorded, especially if there are some inconsistencies in their statements that affect their credibility. In this case, the victim has not yet been examined, and her mother, who is considered a key witness by the prosecution, has also not been questioned. The High Court identified some discrepancies between the FIR and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code. The Bench stated that these discrepancies were not sufficient grounds to grant bail to the accused in a serious case like rape.
Given the current status of the case, the Bench decided not to overturn the High Court’s order. They instructed that the accused, referred to as Respondent No.2, must not enter the village until the trial is complete. The accused is required to provide his new address to the investigating officer at the local police station. Additionally, he must not attempt to influence any prosecution witnesses or contact the victim and her family in any way. The Bench concluded by suggesting that the Trial Court should prioritize Sessions Case No.53/2023 and aim to resolve it within three months.
Cause Title: X v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. [Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 909]
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Shantanu Sagar
Respondent: AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar
