IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving serious sexual offenses, particularly gang rape, the court must carefully consider the evidence and the potential risks to the victim when deciding on bail applications.

ORDER :

1. Arrested in furtherance of FIR No. 79/2023 registered at Police Station Jaitsar, District Ganganagar, petitioners have filed these applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail. The petitioners are charged for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376-D, 377, 382, 384 of the I.P.C.

2. Let me briefly mention the facts germane for disposal of present petition. On 21.03.2023 at around 08.29 PM, complainant Miss “S” lodged a report stating that she had met Chhinda Singh two months ago and also knew Goldie as he was a friend of Chhinda Singh. Around 11:00 in the morning of that day, Chhinda Singh called her upon telephone and asked her to come to a place named “Buddha Johad.” She made an excuse to her mother and went to Bughiya turn on motorcycle of Jagga Singh. There, she met Goldie and Chhinda Singh and went to Buddha Johad on their motorcycle. Upon reaching near Raj Canal, Goldie left the scene. Chhinda Singh then attempted to rape her by removing her salwar. Meanwhile, two persons namely Vinod and Kuldeep started recording the incident on video. Chhinda Singh ran away with mobile of her. Thereafter Vinod and Kuldeep raped her. Later, another person named Deepu also raped her and recorded videos of rape. They threatened complainant to make the videos viral. Afterwards, Akash arrived there and took her near Bughiya turn. She borrowed a phone from a street vendor and informed her mother about the incident. Her mother then came and brought her to the police station. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against several accused including the petitioner and statement of the victim has also been recorded during the trial.

3. To begin at the beginning Shri Trilok Joshi, learned counsel representing petitioner has fervently argued that during the trial, statements of victim have already been recorded in court. She has acknowledged that she had previous acquaintance and friendship with the petitioner. She also admitted that she voluntarily went with the petitioner on his motorcycle after lying to her mother and making an excuse about going to attend a birthday party of her female friend. The victim has not made any allegation of rape against the petitioner in her statements. The charge sheet against the petitioner has been submitted for the crime punishable under Section 366, 376/511 and 120B of IPC. The principal accused are the others. No recovery of any kind has been made from the petitioner. Concluding submissions, he asserted that petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is also an important component in incident of gang rape with the victim. It was further argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the applicant; that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Therefore, petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

6. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, I am clearly of the view that petitioner is architect of the incident. The evidence of victim recorded during trial prima facie inspires confidence. F.I.R. was promptly lodged soon after the incident. The victim became prey of gang-rape because petitioner had called her to a secluded place. The victim did not go with petitioner voluntarily, so that she could be gang-raped. Nor could she have imagined that she could be gang-raped by several people and that her video during rape could be recorded. In the opinion of this court, the fact that the petitioner has been charged only with the offence of attempt to rape, has no bearing on case against him. Although crime of rape by petitioner may not have been fu