Bombay HC in the case of gang rape of minors

The Bombay High Court, in a case of gang rape of a minor girl, has said that mere delay in trial of serious crimes cannot in itself be a ground for granting bail to an accused.

The Court said this in a criminal bail application filed by an accused booked for the offenses under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376-D and 376-DA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

A single bank of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar noticed, “It is therefore clear that mere postponement of the trial on serious crimes cannot in itself be a reason to release a suspect on bail, which belies the facts. As mentioned above, this is a case of gang rape. When the incident occurred, the victim was 15 years and 5 months old. Therefore, there is no reason to grant bail even on the grounds of prolonged detention.”

Lawyer Sana Raees Khan appeared on behalf of the applicant APP Veera Shinde appeared on behalf of the respondents.

In this case, the applicant/accused had preferred the second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as the Single Judge had dismissed the bail application filed by him as withdrawn. Counsel for the accused stated that while the said bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, liberty was granted to file a fresh bail application in case the trial did not commence within a reasonable time.

The counsel further stated that the suspect was arrested in October 2020 and to date there has been no further progress in the trial and even charges have not been filed yet. She therefore argued that the suspect was entitled to bail due to prolonged detention. On the other hand, the APP submitted to the respondents that it was a very serious case where the victim was a victim of gang rape.

The High Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, held: “There is one more important aspect of rejecting a bail application. It is to be noted that this Court issued notice to Respondent No. 2 by order dated February 21, 2024 and also directed the Investigating Officer to inform Respondent No. 2 that he may employ an advocate of his own choice or an advocate may be appointed . through the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai. It is significant to note that the said notice was served on Respondent No. 2, who informed the Investigating Officer in writing on December 4, 2023 and on April 6, 2024 that a lawyer will be appointed through the High Court Legal Services Committee , Mumbai. to represent him. However, as noted earlier, Mr. Biradar, counsel yesterday appeared in the case on behalf of respondent No. 2 and stated that respondent No. 2 has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. In fact, respondent No. 2 was present in court along with the victim as they had consented to grant of bail to the applicant. This is a very serious case of gang rape. It is clear from the conduct of accused No. 2 and the victim that the accused is influencing the witnesses.”

The Court added that it is imperative to expedite the process. Therefore, it has asked the Trial Court to submit periodic reports to the High Court after every three months to ensure that the trial is completed expeditiously and at least within a period of nine months.

The Court concluded that such indications have been given as it is a gang rape and the suspects are trying to influence the victim and witnesses and furthermore tamper with the evidence.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application and issued necessary directions.

Title of Cause – Somnath Bhivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral citation: 2024:BHC-AS:18371)

Appearance:

Applicant: Lawyer Sana Raees Khan

Respondents: APP Veera Shinde and Advocate Sidheshwar N. Biradar.

Click here to read/download the judgment