Accused charged with rape cannot claim bail based on post-charge compromise or subsequent quashment petitions.

The petitioner was accused in FIR No. 17/2022 under Sections 376 (Rape) and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) IPC, alleging repeated sexual assault of the prosecutrix

Subsequent to the framing of charges, the petitioner claimed the prosecutrix approached his son to file a quashment petition under Section 482 CrPC, suggesting a compromise

In the trial, after examining three defence witnesses, the petitioner moved an application under Section 233(3) CrPC to summon additional witnesses regarding this conduct of the prosecutrix, which the Trial Court rejected on 17.12.2024

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail and revision of the Trial Court’s order

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving serious accusations under Section 376 IPC despite a purported compromise with the victim

2. Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal of the application under Section 233(3) CrPC for summoning additional defence witnesses at an advanced stage of trial was legally sustainable

The Court applied Section 376 and 506 of the IPC regarding rape and intimidation

It relied on State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi for parameters governing bail, including the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of influencing witnesses

The Court emphasized the "bail is the rule, jail is exception" doctrine from Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi but noted its limitation in serious offences against women

Crucially, it cited Shimbhu v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Madanlal to establish that rape is a non-compoundable offence against society, and compromises cannot be grounds for leniency

Regarding procedural rights, the Court interpreted Section 233(3) CrPC, which grants the accused a right to summon witnesses unless the application is for vexation or delay

Regarding the bail plea, the Court found that the prosecutrix had consistently supported the prosecution’s case in her Section 164 CrPC statement and the FIR

The Court reasoned that the evidentiary value of alleged contradictions is a matter for trial, not bail

It rejected the "compromise" argument, stating that sexual offences have societal ramifications and cannot be treated as private disputes

Regarding the revision petition, the Court held that the right under Section 233(3) CrPC is not absolute; since the petitioner had already examined three witnesses and the documents regarding the quashment petition were already on record, the Trial Court’s refusal to allow more witnesses at an "advanced stage" was not a jurisdictional error

The Court determined the application was intended to prolong proceedings

It further held that the Trial Court's order dated 17.12.2024 did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity, as the petitioner was afforded fair opportunity to lead his defence. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously