X versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

X versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

The Supreme Court declined to disturb the High Court's order granting bail but held that granting bail by relying on discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's Section 164 statement while the victim and the eyewitness had not been examined was not a proper exercise of discretion in serious offences; the Court imposed conditions (prohibition on entering the village, furnishing new address, no contact with prosecution witnesses) and directed the trial court to give priority to the case to mitigate risk and accord speedy trial.

Parties
Petitioner: X; Respondent: State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 / Challenging High Court Order Dated 12 02 2024 Granting Bail to Accused; SLP Heard and Disposed by Supreme Court on 27 11 2024
Outcome
Special Leave Petition disposed of; impugned High Court bail order not disturbed subject to conditions imposed by the Supreme Court
Legal Topics
Bail, Rape, Speedy Trial, Discrepancies Between FIR and Section 164 Statement, Trial Procedure
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Bail Rape Speedy Trial Discrepancies Between FIR and Section 164 Statement Trial Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Petitioner

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 / Challenging High Court Order Dated 12 02 2024 Granting Bail to Accused; SLP Heard and Disposed by Supreme Court on 27 11 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court properly granted bail to the accused in a rape case when the victim and the mother (an eyewitness) had not yet been examined during trial
  2. 2 Whether discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's Section 164 statement justify granting bail during the pendency of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court declined to disturb the High Court's order granting bail but held that granting bail by relying on discrepancies between the FIR and the victim's Section 164 statement while the victim and the eyewitness had not been examined was not a proper exercise of discretion in serious offences; the Court imposed conditions (prohibition on entering the village, furnishing new address, no contact with prosecution witnesses) and directed the trial court to give priority to the case to mitigate risk and accord speedy trial.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition disposed of; impugned High Court bail order not disturbed subject to conditions imposed by the Supreme Court

Orders

  • High Court order allowing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (accused to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each) is not disturbed
  • Respondent No.2 shall not enter the village Magriyan Ki Dhani Satyaya, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, till completion of the trial