The Bombay High Court has firmly set aside the bail granted to a man accused of gangrape, stressing that the lower court had overlooked critical evidence and failed to weigh the seriousness of the crime. The court held that the reasoning applied by the Dindoshi Sessions Court, which had released the accused primarily on the ground of his impending marriage, was flawed and legally untenable. The High Court, in its ruling, directed the accused to immediately surrender, underscoring that such leniency in the face of grave allegations undermines the principles of justice.
Justice Neela Gokhale, presiding over the matter, pointedly remarked that the trial court had “ignored relevant material” while arriving at its decision. She expressed concern that marriage, which has no legal standing as a parameter for bail, was considered a sufficient reason for release. “The fact that the Trial Court has considered this as a parameter for the grant of bail itself is somewhat troubling,” she observed, highlighting the need for courts to uphold the gravity of sexual offences rather than be swayed by personal circumstances of the accused.
The accused in question had been in custody for around two and a half months before being released on bail on February 24, purportedly to facilitate his marriage. However, as Additional Public Prosecutor Megha S Bajoria informed the High Court, no such marriage had taken place to date, further discrediting the Sessions Court’s justification. Bajoria argued convincingly that granting bail on such grounds was both irrational and contrary to the established principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The case itself is deeply disturbing. Registered in 2024 at DN Nagar police station in Mumbai, it involves three men accused of gangraping a woman after allegedly spiking her drink. The survivor’s testimony paints a harrowing picture: she was physically assaulted, sustained a head injury, was restrained, and subjected to sexual assault by all three accused. Her account was not only consistent but was supported by corroborating evidence. The medical report confirmed injuries to her head and multiple scratches across her body, while other evidence, such as the spot panchnama and testimony of her uncle, reinforced her version of events.
Justice Gokhale noted with dismay that the trial court had chosen to focus on factors such as the absence of injuries on the survivor’s private parts while downplaying the larger context of the allegations and evidence. She stressed that the law does not permit such narrow or dismissive reasoning, particularly in cases involving grave charges like gangrape. According to her, the Sessions Court’s reliance on the accused’s future marriage prospects as a mitigating factor was highly misplaced and set a dangerous precedent.
“What bothers me the most is the considerations which are weighed by the Trial Court while writing the impugned order,” Justice Gokhale said, reaffirming that an impending marriage is not a recognised ground for bail in cases of serious criminal offences. She added that such leniency in the face of violent sexual crimes undermines both the credibility of the judiciary and the faith of survivors in the justice system.
In its conclusion, the High Court firmly established that neither the law nor Supreme Court precedents permit personal circumstances such as marriage to outweigh the gravity of charges like gangrape. The ruling sends out a strong message that courts must place the seriousness of the offence, the evidence on record, and the rights of survivors at the forefront, rather than prioritising considerations irrelevant to justice. By revoking the bail, the High Court has reiterated the importance of a fair and evidence-based approach to bail hearings, particularly in cases involving crimes against women.
