The Delhi High Court has recalled an order issuing bailable warrants against a rape survivor for her non-appearance before a Trial Court. Justice Manoj Jain directed the lower court to sympathetically consider allowing her further cross-examination through video-conferencing, ruling that if physical appearance is deemed absolutely necessary, the State must arrange her travel in advance.
The central issue revolved around the issuance of bailable warrants against a sexual assault survivor who failed to appear for cross-examination due to logistical and personal hardships, including residing in a remote village in Jharkhand. The High Court, setting aside the warrants, emphasized utilizing the existing virtual court mechanisms to facilitate her testimony without causing undue harassment.
Background of the Case
According to the judgment, the petitioner is a survivor of a heinous crime of rape/sexual assault stemming from an incident in 2018. During the trial, she entered the witness box on February 22, 2023. Although she subsequently appeared four times for cross-examination, the process remained incomplete.
When the matter was scheduled for further cross-examination on December 6, 2024, the survivor did not appear. Consequently, on February 13, 2025, the Trial Court issued Bailable Warrants against her due to her non-appearance.
Arguments of the Parties
During the Trial Court hearing on February 13, 2025, the petitioner was represented by her counsel, who submitted a memo of appearance and explained her absence. The counsel cited “late receipt of summons, travel time from her village in Jharkhand to Delhi and responsibility upon her to take care of her minor children.” Despite the counsel requesting another date for compliance, the Trial Court proceeded to issue warrants.
The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court to recall the February 13 order. Her counsel prayed that the Trial Court be requested to examine her through video-conferencing or grant her sufficient time, noting she is settled in a far-flung area 300 km away from Ranchi. During the High Court proceedings, the counsel additionally informed the bench that the nearest district, Godda, is 60 km away from her village, allowing her to join the proceedings virtually from the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DSLA) or Court complex.
Appearing for the State, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) concurred with the feasibility of a virtual hearing, submitting that the “learned Trial Court can always resort to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 and can permit recording of her cross-examination through video conferencing.”
Court’s Analysis
Justice Manoj Jain took note of the urgency cited by the petitioner and pre-poned the hearing. The Court acknowledged the “peculiar situation” of the victim and the practical difficulties she faced in traveling from a remote area to Delhi while caring for minor children.
Decision
The High Court recalled the Trial Court’s order dated February 13, 2025.
Issuing specific directives to the lower court regarding the future course of the trial, Justice Manoj Jain observed: “Simultaneously, the learned Trial Court is requested to consider the submissions made by the petitioner herein in a sympathetic manner and to see whether in such a peculiar situation, she can be permitted to be further examined through video-conferencing mode.”
The Court placed the onus on the State to facilitate her physical appearance if the lower court strictly requires it. The bench directed: “If at all, for any reason whatsoever, the learned Trial Court feels her physical appearance is imperative, it shall give reasons thereof and while asking for such physical appearance, it would also ensure that State would make adequate arrangements of her travel to Delhi. The concerned IO shall ensure that travel tickets, are arranged in advance.”
Furthermore, the High Court directed the Trial Court to ensure that “as and when she appears for cross-examination either physically or through video-conferencing mode, the cross-examination is concluded, without any delay.”
- Case Title: XXXX vs. STATE OF DELHI NCT
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1574/2025
