LI Network
Published on: 28 August 2023 at 12:28 IST
Division Bench of the Supreme Court has overturned a decision granting bail to the accused in a gang rape case, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the impact on the dignity of the victim.
The bench, consisting of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, expressed that if heinous crimes like gang rape go unpunished, the age-old principle “where women are respected, Gods live there” would lose its significance.
The case in question involved a minor gang-rape survivor who challenged the bail granted to the accused by the Rajasthan High Court.
The survivor, aged 15 years and six months, was allegedly drugged and gang-raped by three individuals, including the respondents, on February 24, 2021. It was further alleged that the accused recorded videos of the incident and threatened the survivor not to disclose it, warning that they would make the videos public. The survivor revealed the incident on March 24, 2023, after much persuasion.
The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including extortion and criminal intimidation, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The appellant argued that the offenses committed were heinous and carried a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. They also pointed out that one of the accused was the son of a sitting Congress MLA, increasing the likelihood of evidence tampering.
The respondents’ advocates supported the high court’s order, noting a delay of 13 months in filing the FIR.
After analyzing the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court established parameters for bail applications and considered relevant precedents.
The court referred to the case of Daulat Ram and others V. State of Haryana, which stressed the possibility of revoking bail if supervening circumstances hindered a fair trial. The court reiterated this view in its recent judgment, Ms. X v. State of Telangana, highlighting the importance of societal impact and undue indulgence during the investigation.
Additionally, the court cited the case of Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021), adding that bail could be revoked if the court had overlooked pertinent material on record or had considered irrelevant factors.
The court also referred to Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee and another (2010), emphasizing that while the court rarely interferes with bail orders, the high court should exercise its discretion judiciously and strictly adhere to established principles.
The court concluded that despite the delay in filing the complaint, the accused’s dominance, and the video evidence, the high court’s decision was unsustainable.
The accused were ordered to surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks; failure to comply would result in their arrest.