Punjab and Haryana HC denies bail to main accused in gang rape case

Read Order : Sunil Kumar @ Sunny v. State of Haryana 

LE Staff

Chandigarh, January 3, 2022:  The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to an accused in a case of gang rape wherein it was alleged that the accused had drugged, raped and confined a woman into captivity on the pretext of giving her employment in his farmhouse. 

The Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill was approached by the petitioner- accused for grant of bail in an FIR registered against him under Sections 328, 342, 506, 376-D, 370/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5, 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 6, 7 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The factual scenario of this case was that the petitioner- accused was an acquaintance of the victim’s husband and he offered the victim a job at his farmhouse. He also allegedly assured that he would also arrange for a job for the victim’s husband who worked as a labourer. The victim was brought to his farmhouse on the pretext of this job offer and was drugged and raped by the petitioner- accused. The accused also snatched her phone to prevent her from contacting her husband. 

It was alleged that he used to bring 10-12 persons every day to commit gang rape upon her and she was kept in a locked room. It was also alleged that on July 18,2018, nine persons committed rape out ot of which two were police officials. The victim- complainant managed to escape from the farmhouse and registered the FIR. 

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that he was not liable for the offences attracted from the IPC in the FIR and that even if the prosecution story was to be believed, he (the accused) would be liable for an offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which was punishable for a maximum imprisonment of 2 years whereas the petitioner as on date had already undergone imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 6 months. 

The counsel also cited a lack of medical evidence and of physical injury on the body of the victim to be evidence of the innocence of the accused. It was also submitted that the FSL report did not suggest anything in support of the case of the prosecution. And lastly, it was argued that since all other co-accused were ordered to be released on bail, the petitioner should also be granted bail. 

On the contrary, the State counsel submitted that the petitioner was the main accused who infact invited his friends and acquaintances for raping the victim and that she had been made a captive.

After having gone through the rival submissions, the Court noted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded in terms of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and also in her statement recorded during the proceedings of the trial had stated consistently with regard to the case of the prosecution as regards her rape.

Further, the Court showed its disagreement with the argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner should at maximum be tried for offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and observed that the petitioner was the main accused, and the allegations against him virtually had been substantiated.

Thus, opining that the alleged offence was heinous in nature and without recording any findings on the merit of the case, the Court denied bail to the petitioner- accused.