Very Serious Offence: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Accused Allegedly Involved In Gang Rape Of 2 Minor Boys

The Bombay High Court has denied bail to a man who was accused of being involved in gang rape of two minor boys aged 12 years and 14 years, respectively.

A Criminal Bail Application was preferred under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking bail in connection with an FIR lodged under Sections 377 and 506(II) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed, “… as the offence is very serious and heinous and there is likelihood of the Applicant bringing pressure on the witnesses and as minimum punishment which can be imposed on the Applicant, if convicted, is 20 years, no case is made out for grant of benefit under Section 436A of CrPC.”

The Bench added that it is necessary that the trial is to be concluded expeditiously.

Advocate Chaitanya Purankar appeared on behalf of the Applicant while APP D. J. Haldankar and Advocate Shanice Mansukhani appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

An FIR was lodged by the father of one victim stating that in December 2021, at around 1:00 a.m., the police came to his residential house and showed him one video available in the mobile phone that they had in their possession. In the said video, he saw that two boys from his village (including the Applicant) had forcibly detained his son in one room, removed his clothes, and had an unnatural sex with him.

The counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Applicant forcibly brought the minor victim to the premises where the incident took place. It was alleged that he coerced the victim into removing his clothes through threats and intimidation and physically pushed the victim's head onto his own lap during the commission of the sexual offence by the co-accused so as to physically restrain his movement. It was further alleged that he remained present and actively complicit throughout the incident and did nothing to prevent the assault.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “… the evidence on record prima facie shows that the present Applicant forcibly brought the minor victims to the place where the incident took place. He threatened the victims and forced them to remove their clothes, compelled the victims to do the act and physically restrained them. The material on record further prima facie shows that the Applicant has actively participated in the incident in question. The offence in question is very serious and heinous, where victims-boys aged 12 and 14 years have been sexually assaulted and subjected to gang rape.”

The Court noted that the medical report supports the prosecution case and the incident has been videographed by the accused no.3. It added that the said video recording shows that the Applicant is involved in the crime.

“This is a serious case where three accused have sexually assaulted the minor boys. Thus, as set out herein above, no case is made out for grant of bail on merits”, it held.

The Court further reiterated that in exceptional circumstances, directions can be issued for time bound disposal of the case.

“This is a case where the Applicant is involved in very serious crime and is taking contention that this Court should not expedite the trial. In fact, earlier Bail Application has been allowed to be withdrawn by this Court by order dated 11th March 2024 passed in Bail Application No.3551 of 2023. Thus, it is very clear that even the Applicant’s earlier Bail Application was allowed to be withdrawn as no case was made out to allow the Bail Application on merits. The only contention which can be raised by the Applicant is long incarceration”, it observed.

Conclusion

The Court also noted that the Applicant is not interested in time bound disposal of the trial and interested in delaying the trial so that he can take advantage of the same and seek bail on the ground of long incarceration.

“However, in the facts and circumstances, as the children of 12 years and 14 years are subjected to gang rape, the learned Trial Court is requested to make endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. … The State of Maharashtra to ensure that the accused should either be produced physically or through Video Conferencing before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of the trial”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Bail Application.

Cause Title- Nilesh Suryakant Netake v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:33611)

Click here to read/download the Judgment