After over 8 years in custody, gang-rape accused denied bail; trial court directed to expedite proceedings and consider recording victim’s evidence by commission

The appellant sought bail while challenging the rejection of his bail prayer in a prosecution arising from Kushmandi Police Case No. 20 of 2018.

He had been charged under provisions including Sections 376D, 376(2)(m), 326 and 307 of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, a Scheduled Tribe woman, was gang-raped and left for dead, suffering severe physical and mental injuries.

The appellant had been in custody for more than eight years. He argued that the trial had been unduly delayed; the parties gave differing accounts of the number of witnesses examined—15 of 37 according to the appellant and 17 of 37 according to the State—and the victim and some medical witnesses had not yet testified. A prior bail application had been rejected, and the trial court had also refused bail.

Whether prolonged pre-trial custody and delay in completing the trial, considered in light of Article 21, justified granting bail to the appellant

Whether the gravity of the alleged offence, the material against the appellant and the fact that the victim and important medical witnesses remained unexamined outweighed the delay-based ground for bail

The Court considered the appellant’s claim to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution alongside the gravity of the alleged offences and the material in the case diary.

The application arose under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with the relevant criminal procedure provisions identified in the judgment.

The parties cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v. State of Maharashtra, Aminuddin v. State of U.P. and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar in support of their respective positions.

The Court’s stated approach was that delay and custody must be assessed in the context of the particular case; here, delay alone did not warrant bail given the alleged offence, the incriminating material and the outstanding testimony.

The Court acknowledged that the appellant had spent more than eight years in custody and that the trial remained incomplete.

However, it found no indication that the State or the victim was responsible for the delay, and noted that the victim’s severe physical and mental condition made it difficult for her to testify.

Having regard to the grave allegations, the material in the case diary and the fact that the victim and important medical experts had yet to be examined, the Court concluded that the appellant’s Article 21 and delay-based submissions did not justify release on bail.

It nevertheless treated the prolonged trial as requiring urgent remedial action.

In view of the appellant’s lengthy custody and the delay in trial, it requested the trial court to treat the matter as a special case and proceed with day-to-day hearings or, at minimum, take evidence two days each week.

If the victim could not be examined in court, the trial court was directed to consider examining her on commission and/or obtaining assistance from medical experts or psychiatrists.

The application was disposed of with those observations and directions.