Supreme Court Sets Aside Rajasthan HC’s Interim Protection in Rape Case
The Supreme Court sets aside Rajasthan HC order, citing 'functus officio' principle.
The Supreme Court recently held that the Rajasthan High Court acted without jurisdiction when it granted interim protection from arrest to an accused in a rape case after having earlier dismissed his petition for quashing of the FIR. Court said that once the high court dismissed the original plea under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), it became functus officio and could not recall or review its order.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment on September 16, 2025, allowing an appeal filed by complainant Jagdish Godara, who is the brother of the victim. The appeal arose from the high court’s July 11, 2025 order granting the accused 30 days’ protection from arrest and liberty to seek pre-arrest bail.
The case dates back to January 2022, when the victim went missing after leaving for agricultural work. She was later found unconscious in the bathroom of a co-accused’s house. In her statement, the victim alleged that she was abducted and raped by three persons – co-accused Maghraj, Satyaprakash, and the second respondent in the case. She also claimed the sexual assaults had been ongoing for nearly three years. An FIR was registered under IPC provisions, including gang rape, as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Satyaprakash alone, while inquiries continued against the second respondent and Maghraj. The sessions court had earlier dismissed the second respondent’s anticipatory bail plea in May 2022, citing the seriousness of the allegations and his necessity for investigation.
In February 2025, the Rajasthan High Court rejected the second respondent’s plea under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, noting that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences requiring further judicial scrutiny. However, the accused later approached the high court again by filing what was styled as a recall application. Entertaining this fresh application, the high court extended him 30 days’ protection from arrest, noting discrepancies in investigation reports and suggesting he could move for anticipatory bail afresh.
This prompted the complainant to move the Supreme Court, contending that the high court had no authority to revisit its earlier order. Agreeing with this, the apex court observed that once the high court dismissed the petition, it had exhausted its jurisdiction. “The High Court erred on three counts – first, it had no power to review a Section 482 order; second, it treated the recall plea as a fresh case; and third, it wrongly granted interim protection despite having no inclination to interfere,” the bench held.
The Supreme Court further noted that the accused’s earlier anticipatory bail plea had already been dismissed by the sessions court and not challenged thereafter. “It was wholly erroneous for the high court to advise the accused to seek anticipatory bail afresh and to shield him from arrest for 30 days,” the judgment said, striking down those directions.
However, the top court clarified that the accused retains the right to apply for regular bail, which must be considered by the sessions court on its own merits and in accordance with law. It also recorded that the accused’s pre-arrest bail plea had since been rejected by the sessions court in August 2025, with an appeal pending before the high court.
By setting aside the interim protection, the Supreme Court underscored the limits of judicial review under Section 482 CrPC, reiterating that high courts cannot recall or review their own orders in such proceedings.
Case Title: Jagdish Godara Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr
Judgment Date: September 16, 2025
Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan