New Delhi [India], April 14 : The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of a Rajasthan High Court order granting ex parte interim bail to accused persons in a gang rape case, observing that such relief in a serious offence required consideration after hearing all parties.
The apex court also issued notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks.
A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan passed the order on April 13 while hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the survivor challenging the High Court's April 7, 2025, order. The delay in filing the plea was condoned at the outset.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Mayank Jain argued that despite a named FIR alleging gang rape, the High Court granted interim protection to the accused without recording any reasons, effectively shielding them from arrest in the grave offence.
The Supreme Court noted the grievance and directed that the effect and operation of the High Court's order granting ex parte interim protection in connection with the FIR registered at Udaimandir Police Station, Jodhpur, shall remain stayed.
However, it clarified that the High Court may consider a fresh application for a stay after hearing both sides.
According to the contents of the petition, the case pertains to allegations of intoxication and gang rape, where the accused allegedly secured blanket interim protection under proceedings initiated under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).
The plea contends that the High Court's order was a single-line direction passed without assigning any reasons, despite the seriousness of the charges.
The petition further claims that the investigation yielded crucial forensic evidence, including DNA analysis linking one of the accused to the offence. It is stated that DNA samples obtained during the investigation matched with biological material collected from the survivor, as well as with the foetus conceived following the alleged assault, thereby establishing a direct link between the accused and the crime.
It is also alleged that despite such evidence, the accused have remained at large for over a year due to the interim protection, while the survivor has faced intimidation and threats. The petition refers to alleged instances of coercion, including threats to her safety and attempts to pressure her into silence, along with claims of inaction by the investigating agency in taking the case to its logical conclusion.
The plea relies on settled law that powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used as a substitute for anticipatory bail and cites precedent to argue that criminal investigations should not be stalled without cogent reasons. It asserts that the impugned order has adversely affected a fair investigation and deprived the survivor of meaningful justice.