Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar
In the Supreme Court of India
Crl. A. 2560/2023
Before Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
Decided on August 23, 2023

Relevancy of the case: Appeal against the grant of bail in a case of gang rape of a minor and recording of the act to blackmail her

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66, 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 376(2)(n), 376D, 384, 506)
• The Prevention Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Section 326, 516)
• The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 3(2)(v))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant is the uncle of a minor girl aged fifteen years and six months. Respondent number 3, along with the other accused, gang-raped the girl on February 24, 2021. They took videos of the incident and threatened her not to disclose the incident.
• The girl disclosed the incident on March 24, 2023. After the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet only against Respondent number 2 and Respondent number 3.
• The police arrested them; however, the High Court granted them bail before the trial court could examine the witnesses.
• The jurisdictional court took cognisance against Respondent number 1 and summoned him. He did not surrender even after issuing an arrest warrant.
• Thus, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The appellant’s counsel argued that:

• The victim, in her statement, has stated that all accused persons have committed gang rape. Therefore, this makes a prima facie case for conviction.
• There is a very high probability of tampering with the evidence. Respondent number 1’s name was present in the FIR, but it disappeared from the chargesheet later.
• Moreover, the accused persons have also threatened the victim’s father to withdraw the complaint.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that:

• The appellant complained one year after the date of the incident.
• The victim was at the school on the incident date in the school records. Thus, the complaint looks frivolous.
• According to the telephone records, Respondent number 1 was 40 to 80 km away from the scene of the incident. Also, he had no connection with the victim.

Opinion of the Bench

• The High Court has given a complete go to the allegations in the FIR and recorded statements. Hence, it is necessary to set aside the High Court’s order.

Final Decision

• The bench set aside the order of the High Court and directed the respondents to surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks.