The Supreme Court (on September 8) expressed strong displeasure over the delay by a trial Court in West Bengal in examining a rape survivor, observing that conducting her testimony in a piecemeal manner indirectly aids the accused in tampering with evidence. The Court sought an explanation from both the trial Court and the public prosecutor as to why the survivor’s deposition had not been completed despite the accused being out on bail for nearly a year.

The matter arises out of the incidents of post-poll violence in West Bengal (2021).

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan noted:

“The CBI, aggrieved by the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondent in a rape case, has approached this Court seeking cancellation of bail. At the time bail was granted, the accused had already spent three years and five months in custody. Nearly a year has passed since his release. We were informed that trial has begun, the survivor has stepped into the witness box, and her examination is underway. Yet, the next date for her testimony is fixed in December 2025. Once the survivor has taken the stand, why should her examination be adjourned by four months? Such delays are unacceptable. The trial Court owes an explanation, as this indirectly facilitates witness tampering.”

The Court directed the Registry to obtain a detailed report from the trial Court within a week, including the status of the trial, list of witnesses examined, and dates of the survivor’s testimony. It also directed the CBI and the public prosecutor to explain why the key witness was not examined earlier.

The CBI, in its application, sought cancellation of bail highlighting the respondent’s six prior antecedents, which were overlooked when bail was granted on September 24, 2024.

ASG Archana Dev Pathak, appearing for CBI, initially stated that witnesses were being examined but the survivor was yet to be examined. This prompted Justice Pardiwala to question: “In a Section 376 case, what is the logic of examining the survivor last? Why would the prosecution delay the most crucial testimony?” Later, Pathak clarified that the survivor’s examination has begun but adjourned till December. The bench slammed this delay as “nonsense” and said such conduct only strengthens the accused.

The ASG further submitted that after bail, the respondent absconded and appeared only after a non-bailable warrant was issued. She added that he threatened the survivor and complainant, leading them to approach the DGP.

On behalf of the accused, counsel argued that he was acquitted in some of his pending six cases. The Court dismissed this claim, stressing that multiple cases reflect his “propensity to commit such offences.”

Case Title: CBI vs. Mir Usman Ara Mir Usman Ali | SLP (Crl) No. 969/2025