X versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 941, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 941 : 2024 INSC 909
X 
v. 
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024)
27 November 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards accused being enlarged on bail in rape 
case by the High Court, when the victim and the mother who was 
the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 - Grant of bail to 
person apprehending arrest – Accused enlarged on bail in rape 
case by the High Court, when only one witness was examined 
and the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to 
the incident were yet to be examined – Propriety:
Held: In the instant case, the victim is yet to be examined and 
her mother who, is an eye-witness has also not been examined 
so far – High Court seems to have looked into few discrepancies 
in the FIR compared to the statement of victim recorded u/s. 164 
Cr.P.C. – This could not have been a good ground to exercise 
discretion in favour of an accused in a serious offence like rape – 
At this point of time, the impugned order passed by the High Court 
not disturbed, however, appropriate conditions imposed so as to 
ensure that the accused and the co-accused do not influence 
the prosecution witnesses or try to tamper with the evidence in 
any manner – Since the victim and her mother as well as both 
the accused are residing in the very same village, the accused 
directed not to enter the said
village till the completion of the 
trial. [Paras 17-20]
Judicial deprecation – Bail application of the accused in 
serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc. – Trial 
Court or the High Court to be reluctant in entertaining the 
bail application – However, either bail is granted after the 
charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined
942
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 – Propriety:
Held: Is not a correct practice that the Courts below should 
adopt – 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 – 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 – 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. [Para 16]
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Enlarged on bail in rape case; Bail; Rape; Discrepancies in FIR; 
Pending trial; Speedy trial.
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2024 of the High Court  
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCRMBA
No.  
1351 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Gunjesh Ranjan, Anil Kumar, Chinmay Kumar, Shantanu Sagar, 
Advs. for the Petitioner.
Padmesh Mishra, A.A.G., Tushar Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
943
X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
This petition arises from the impugned order passed by the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 12-02-2024 in 
SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1351/2024 by which 
the bail application filed by the Respondent No.2 – herein (original 
accused) came to be allowed and the Respondent No.2 was ordered 
to be released on bail pending trial.
2.	
It appears from the materials on record that a First Information 
Report came to be lodged by the petitioner – herein dated 18-09-
2023 against the Respondent No.2 – herein and a co-accused for 
the offence punishable under Section 376D and Section 342 of the 
Indian Penal Code. The FIR bearing No.83/2023 was registered with 
Police Station Nachna, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. 
3.	
The Respondent No.2 – herein and the co-accused were arrested 
in connection with the alleged offence. The co-accused was ordered 
to be enlarged on bail long time back.
4.	
It appears that after the FIR was registered, the statement of the 
victim, i.e., the petitioner – herein was recorded by the Magistrate 
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
5.	
Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 
6.	
The criminal case being committed to the Court of Sessions came 
to be registered as the Sessions Case No.53/2023 pending as on 
date in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Pokaran 
(Jaisalmer). 
7.	
The prosecution has examined one witness so far.
8.	
In the midst of the trial, the Respondent No.2 – herein preferred a 
bail application before the Trial Court. The Trial Court declined to 
release the accused on bail. 
9.	
The accused went before the High Court and prayed for bail. 
10.	 The High Court took into consideration some discrepancies emanating 
between the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under 
Section 164 of the Code. The High Court was persuaded to release 
the Respondent No.2 – herein on bail.
944
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11.	 Having regard to such discrepancies in the FIR and the statement 
recorded under Section 164 of the Code, the operative part of the 
impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus:- 
“Para 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under 
Section 439 Cr. P.C is allowed and it is ordered that the 
accused-petitioner as amed in the cause title shall be 
enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond 
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his 
appearance before the court concerned on all the dates 
of hearing as and when called upon to do so.” 
12.	 In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner, i.e., the 
victim is here before us with the present petition. 
13.	 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 
the learned counsel appearing for the State. The Respondent No.2 – 
accused although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet 
has chosen not to remain present before this Court either in-person 
or through an Advocate and oppose this petition. 
14.	 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.
15.	 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. 
16.	 We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the 
Courts below should adopt. 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. It is only in 
the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
945
X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
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. 
17.	 In the case on hand, the victim is yet to be examined. Her mother 
who, according to the case of the prosecution, is an eye-witness 
has also not been examined so far. 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.
18.	 However, we are of the view that now at this point of time, we 
should not disturb the impugned order passed by the High Court. 
At the same time, we should impose appropriate conditions so as 
to ensure that the Respondent No.2 – herein and the co-accused 
do not influence the prosecution witnesses or try to tamper with the 
evidence in any manner. Even while enlarging the accused on bail, 
the High Court should have been conscious of this fact. The High 
Court has thought fit to only ask the Respondent No.2 - accused – 
herein to furnish solvent surety of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- without 
imposing any appropriate conditions.
19.	 We wonder if the High Court was made aware of the fact that the 
victim and her mother as well as both the accused are residing 
in the very same village viz. Magriyan Ki Dhani Satyaya,
District 
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
20.	 In such circumstances, without disturbing the order of bail passed 
by the High Court, we direct that the Respondent No.2 – herein 
shall not enter the said village till the completion of the trial. As we 
have asked the respondent No.2 – accused not to enter the village, 
he shall furnish address of his new residence to the investigating 
officer attached with the concerned police station. The Respondent 
No.2 shall not try to influence any of the prosecution witnesses in 
any manner or directly or indirectly try to contact the victim and 
her family.
21.	 Having regard to the nature of the alleged crime, it will be in the 
fitness of things if the Trial Court gives some priority to the Sessions 
Case No.53/2023 and try to dispose it of within a period of three 
months from today.

946
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22.	 We clarify that what has been observed by us in this order are 
just prima facie observations and shall not be considered as an 
expression of any final opinion as regards the guilt or innocence 
of the accused.
23.	 The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in above terms. 
24.	 Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Special Leave Petition disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain