Bombay High Court Cancels Bail Granted in Gang-Rape Case, Criticises Trial Court for Relying on Accused’s Upcoming Marriage
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, cancelled the bail granted to an accused in a gang-rape case, and directed him to surrender before the investigating officer within two days. The State of Maharashtra had sought recall of the earlier Sessions Court order that released the accused on bail citing his forthcoming marriage. The High Court noted that the trial court failed to consider material evidence including the victim’s consistent statements, medical findings of injuries, and corroborating witness accounts, and held that the seriousness of the offence required revocation of the bail order.
The case arose from an application filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge at Dindoshi to an accused in a gang-rape case. The bail had been granted on the ground that the accused’s marriage was imminent and that no injuries were found on the victim’s private parts.
According to the prosecution, the victim, a young woman, went to a flat accompanied by one of the co-accused, whom she knew. At the flat, which was rented by the respondent-accused, she was allegedly given a spiked drink, assaulted, disrobed, and raped by three persons. The victim stated that her mobile phone was taken away, her hands were tied, and she was physically injured. She narrated the incident in her First Information Report and later confirmed it in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her statement described head injuries and other marks of violence.
The prosecution also produced a medical report showing injuries on her head and other parts of her body, as well as corroborative evidence including the statement of her uncle, the spot panchanama listing items found at the scene, and the landlord’s statement confirming that the premises were rented by the respondent.
The State contended that the trial court erred in granting bail by disregarding the medical findings, consistent victim testimony, and other evidence such as recovered photographs and corroborating witness accounts. The State argued that the gravity of the offence and the statutory punishment required denial of bail.
The defence argued that there were discrepancies between the victim’s initial report and her later statement and maintained that the grant of bail was justified. The intervention application by the victim’s representative supported the State’s plea for cancellation.
The Court stated: “Upon taking into account the entirety of the case, it appears that the impugned order requires intercession. A plain reading of the order reveals that the Respondent-Accused was enlarged on bail, without examining all material aspects placed by the prosecution before the Trial Court by way of filing the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet.”
The Court relied on recent Supreme Court judgements, including Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 307) and Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768. Quoting from these judgments, Justice Gokhale recorded: “A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths.” Further, it was noted: “An unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail.”
After reviewing the FIR, the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and medical records, the Court recorded: “The Victim-Complainant has narrated the entire sordid ordeal faced by her at the hands of the three accused in the criminal case. A plain reading of the FIR as well as the statement of the Victim-Complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. clearly reveal that although she went to the said flat voluntarily with Accused no.1, being her friend, accompanied by the Respondent-Accused, she was given a spiked drink, after which she was taken to the bathroom and beaten up by accused no.1… She was brutally raped by all the three accused.”
The Court noted corroborative material, including the statement of the victim’s uncle, the spot panchanama describing articles such as a pink ladies’ undergarment, liquor bottle, cigarette buds, and the landlord’s confirmation that the flat was rented to the accused. The Court found that the Sessions Court had ignored these relevant facts.
Particularly troubling to the High Court was the trial court’s reasoning: “What bothers me the most is the considerations which are weighed by the Trial Court while writing the impugned order. The Trial Court has considered only two aspects; Firstly, that there are no injuries on the private part of the Victim-Complainant albeit, the Trial Judge does record injuries on the person of the Victim-Complainant as appearing in the medical report; Secondly, the Trial Court appears to have been swayed by the fact that the marriage of the Respondent-Accused is scheduled in the near future.”
The Court firmly held: “The statute as well as a series of decision of the apex court and various high court have well settled the parameters for the grant of bail to an under trial. Impending marriage of an accused is not one of them.”
Justice Gokhale stated: “Accordingly, for the reasons as stated aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and the order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused is cancelled. The Respondent-Accused is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer latest within two days from the date of uploading of this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant-State: Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent-Accused: Mr. Shlok Saraogi
For the Intervenor-Victim: Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh with Mr. Tarun Shetty
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra v. XY
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:41589
Case Number: Criminal Application No. 367 of 2025 with Interim Application (ST) No.19317 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
