Supreme Court Questions Trial Court's Delay In Examining Rape Victim In 2021 West Bengal Post-Poll Violence Case

The Supreme Court (on September 8) observed that a trial Court in West Bengal, by conducting the examination of a rape victim in a piecemeal manner, was indirectly facilitating the accused to tamper with the evidence. It sought an explanation from the trial Court as well as the public prosecutor why the victim had not been examined despite the fact that the accused was granted bail an year ago.

The case relates to the post-poll violence which took place in West Bengal in 2021.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered:

"The CBI, being aggrieved by the order passed by the high court granting bail to the respondent in connection with the offence of rape, has preferred this petition to get the bail cancelled. At the relevant point of point when the High Court granted bail to the respondent, he was already in custody past three years and five months. It has been almost one year that the High Court ordered release of the respondent on bail. We heard Ms ASG, appearing for CBI and learned counsel for Respondent. We are informed that the trial Court started recording oral evidence of the witnesses. We are further informed that victim has already stepped into the witness box and her oral evidence is being recorded.

The next date fixed by the trial Court for further examination is sometime in December 2025. We fail to understand once the witnesses, more particularly when the victim has herself stepped into the box, why this examination is piecemeal. Why should the trial Court adjourn the matter for four months. The trial Court owes an explanation in this regard. By granting time for further examination, the trial Court has unwittingly facilitated the accused to tamper with prosecution's witnesses. This is something we should not ignroe and it is a matter of concern. Registry to call for the appropriate report of the trial Court as well as status of the trial, witnesses examined, and when was victim examined last...let this report reach this Court within 1 week. Even CBI owes an explanation, more particularly the public prosecution, as to why the witnesses has not been examined so far."

In this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") had filed an application for the cancellation of the bail on the grounds that his past six antecedents were not considered while granting him the bail. He was granted bail on September 24, 2024.

Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General Archana Dev Pathak initially said that the witnesses are being examined, but the victim was yet to be examined. On this, Justice Pardiwala asked: "What is the idea in examining the victim last? In a case of [Section] 376, what is the idea of examining the complainant last? Can you just enlighten us as to why the public prosecution thought fit to not put the victim in a box till this time?"

After this query, ASG Pathak said that she has updated instructions that the victim is being examined, but the next date of examination is in December. Justice Pardiwala then questioned why such delay by the trial Court in the examination of the victim. "What is this nonsense going on? Which is this trial Court? Give all opportunities to the accused person to tamper with the prosecution witnesses."

ASG Pathak submitted that the respondent was absconding after bail was granted, and only after this Court issued a non-bailable warrant that he appeared. She added that the respondent-accused also threatened the victim and the complainant, and they had to file a complaint before the DGP.

For the Respondent, the Advocate informed the Court that he has instructions that in the six cases pending against him, he has been acquitted in some. However, the Court outrightly rejected this argument. It said that the existence of six cases against him shows his "tendency" to commit such offences.

Case Details: THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs MIR USMAN ARA MIR USMAN ALI|SLP(Crl) No. 969/2025

Click Here To Read Order