The Bombay High Court recently took a serious note in a case involving the commission of a very grave and heinous crime of gang rape and sexual assault upon minor victims belonging to the age group of 12 to 14 years, and refused to grant bail to the applicant, after finding his active involvement in the said offence. The Court strongly denied the benefit of Section 436A of the CrPC on the pretext of long incarceration, stall in the trial and non-framing of charges.
The Court was constrained to deny bail, looking at the doubtful conduct of the applicant, where even after having been charged under the heinous offence of gang rape, he was neither willing nor did he pray for expediting the trial. In fact, his earlier bail application was also allowed to be withdrawn by this Court in an order dated March 11, 2024, and he was simply pushing this second bail application on the pretext of long incarceration.
Considering that the offence of sexual assault committed on minor victims was grave and heinous, calling for a minimum punishment of 20 years if convicted, and there was a likelihood of the Applicant bringing pressure on the witnesses, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar opined that the present case does not deserves grant of benefit under Section 436A of the CrPC. The Bench observed that the conduct of the applicant soundly established that he is not interested in time-bound disposal of the trial and rather in delaying the trial so that he can take advantage of the same.
The incident in question involved two minor victims referred to as “A” and “B”, and the FIR was lodged by the father of victim ‘A’, based on a mobile video clip shown by the police alleging that the applicant with another boy, who were claimed to be from neighbouring vicinity, had forcibly detained ‘A’, disrobed him and had unnatural sex with him.
The written note tendered in the Court about the role of the Applicant based on the material on record stated that the Applicant forcibly brought the victims to the premises where the horrific incident took place, coerced the victim into removing his clothes through threats and intimidation, and then physically pushed the victim into the commission of the sexual offence by the co-accused. It was also stated in the note that the applicant was physically present and actively complicit throughout the incident and did nothing to prevent the assault. The statements as set out in the Chargesheet, as well as those made by the minor victim boys, were corroborated by a video recording of the same.
Looking to the prima facie evidence, the medical report, and the video recording, the Single Judge accepted the active involvement of the applicant in forcibly threatening the victims and forceful removal of their clothes, leading to sexual assault and subjecting the tender-aged victims aged 12 and 14 years to gang rape, and opined that no case is made out for grant of bail. Previously, this Court by its order dated March 11, 2024, had granted liberty to file a fresh Bail Application after one year, if there is no substantial progress in the trial.
The present is the second bail application, which was also refused by the Single Judge. However, considering the tender age of children between 12 and 14 years who were subjected to gang rape, the Bench requested the Trial Court to endeavour to conclude the trial within one year, and asked the State to ensure that the accused should either be produced physically or through Video Conferencing before the Trial Court on every date of the trial.
Appearances:
Advocate Chaitanya Purankar, for the Applicant
APP D. J. Haldankar, for the State
Advocate Shanice Mansukhani, for the Respondent No.2.
