Supreme Court Grants Bail to Brothers Accused of Repeated Rape of Minor

The Supreme Court has ordered the release on bail of two brothers accused in a case of repeated sexual assault of a minor in Rajasthan, holding that their further custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that prolonged incarceration during a pending trial could not be justified.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, while hearing appeals against the Rajasthan High Court’s rejection of bail, noted that although the allegations were extremely grave, the investigation had been completed and the matter had already proceeded to trial with one prosecution witness examined.

The Court stressed that pre-trial detention could not be used punitively once the requirements of investigation had been met.

Allegations in FIR and Investigation

The case stems from FIR No. 257/2024 registered on May 17, 2024 at Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara.

The prosecutrix, then aged 18, alleged that accused Shahnawaz and his brother Shahinoor had sexually assaulted her repeatedly since 2019, beginning when she was 14 years old. She stated that the accused took nude photographs and videos of her to blackmail her and threatened to harm her family if she resisted.

According to the chargesheet, the prosecutrix was allegedly abducted on April 30, 2024 and taken to Ajmer, where she was confined until May 3, 2024.

During this period, Shahnawaz is accused of raping her while Shahinoor allegedly aided him in kidnapping and confinement. She returned to her family thereafter, but the FIR was filed after a 14-day delay, which the victim attributed to being under intoxication and depression until May 14, 2024.

The investigation revealed multiple incidents of alleged rape, including one in December 2019 at Nathdwara Sarai when she was a minor. The police recorded her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and corroborated her version through site inspections at Bhilwara and Ajmer.

The medico legal examination conducted on May 17, 2024 noted an old healed hymenal tear and collected forensic samples for FSL analysis. The chargesheet also recorded the seizure of mobile phones allegedly used for intimidation, as well as call data records and a motorcycle linked to the kidnapping.

Shahnawaz was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506, 384, 376(2)(n), 376(3), and 376D of the IPC and Sections 5(l), 5(g), and 6 of the POCSO Act. Shahinoor was booked under Sections 120B, 366, 342, 384, 376D IPC and Sections 16 and 17 POCSO Act.

Submission by the Appellants

Appearing for the appellants, Advocate-on-Record Namit Saxena argued that the allegations were exaggerated and belated. It was submitted that Shahnawaz had married the prosecutrix upon her attaining majority, and that no incriminating material such as photographs, videos, or weapons was recovered.

The defence highlighted the 14 day delay in lodging the FIR and contended that the case was crafted to fall under POCSO provisions. It was also argued that the medical evidence did not substantiate the charge of repeated sexual assault.

Submission by the State

Counsel for the State of Rajasthan, Advocate Saurabh Rajpal, opposed bail, pointing out that the prosecutrix had given detailed testimony in court as PW-1, reiterating the allegations of rape and coercion, and that the trial was at a very early stage with 23 witnesses yet to be examined.

The prosecutrix was represented separately by Advocate-on-Record, Abhishek Atrey, who supported the State’s opposition.

Top Court's Decision and Rationale

After hearing the parties, the bench observed that the appellants had remained in custody since May 2024 and that the investigation was complete.

The Court emphasized that while the accusations were grave, bail jurisprudence required consideration of factors beyond gravity, including the stage of trial, length of custody, and the principle that pre-trial detention should not amount to punishment.

Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Court reiterated that denial of bail must be based on compelling necessity and not on presumption of guilt. It concluded that continued incarceration would not serve the interests of justice when the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the appellants Shahnawaz and Shahinoor be released on bail, subject to conditions ensuring their presence during trial.

Case Title: Shahinoor @ Vicky Rahman v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: September 3, 2025