BHAGWAN SINGH versus DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 469, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
CASE DETAILS
BHAGWAN SINGH
v.
DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 2560 of 2023)
AUGUST 23, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Single Judge of the High Court 
was justiﬁ ed in granting bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the 
FIR registered against them by the appellant-uncle of the minor girl alleging 
gang rape, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and extortion for 
the oﬀ ences punishable u/ss. 376D, 384, 506 IPC, s. 3 to 6 of POCSO Act, 
s. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and s. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Special powers of High 
Court or Court of Session regarding bail – Grant of bail – Allegation of 
gang rape of minor girl aged 15 years, threat of making video of rape 
recorded viral and extortion – Registration of FIR by the complainant-
uncle for the minor girl for oﬀ ences punishable u/ss. 376D, 384, 506 IPC, 
s. 3 to 6 of POCSO Act, s. 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act and s. 66 of the 2000 Act 
against three accused, one son of the sitting MLA, other an acquaintance 
and the third one the manager of the hotel where the alleged incident 
occurred – Grant of bail by the High Court – Justiﬁ cation:
Held: Instant case is a heinous one and would be a onslaught on the 
dignity of the womanhood – Father of the victim was a police constable, 
far below in
the hierarchy of service – One of the accused was the son of a 
sitting MLA and another accused seems to have criminal antecedents and 
the third accused was the manager of the Hotel where the alleged incident 
of gang rape occurred – Reason assigned for 13 month delay in ﬁ ling the 
complaint was constant threat posed by the accused persons of making the 
video of rape to go viral, especially being in a domineering position – Fact 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 469 : 2023 INSC 761
469
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
of delay prima facie cannot be held against the prosecution – Genuineness 
of the complaint cannot be viewed with doubt nor it can be held that by itself 
would be suﬃ  cient ground to enlarge the accused on bail – Prosecutrix made 
allegations against the concerned accused and it becomes amply clear from 
the plain reading of the complaint as well as the testimony of the prosecutrix 
that accused persons had indeed participated in the gang rape – High Court 
erred in not considering the basic facts while considering the prayer for bail 
– Court framed charges, prima facie discloses the possibility and reasonable 
suspicion of the accused prima facie culpability – Impugned order granting 
bail not only bereft of material particulars which would justify grant of bail, 
but seems that the High Court got swayed on the ground of delay and the 
video having not been recovered during the course of investigation and gave 
a complete go by to the allegation made in the FIR and statement recorded as 
also the testimony of the prosecutrix before the court – Thus, the order of the 
High Court set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376D, 384, 506 – Protection 
of Children from Sexual Oﬀ ences Act, 2012 – s. 3 to 6 – Scheduled Castes 
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s. 3(2)(v) – 
Information Technology Act, 2000 – s. 66. [Paras 17, 20-21, 23-28]
Bail – Grant of – Parameters to be considered: 
Held: Grant of bail is a
discretionary relief – Such discretion is to be 
exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course – Grant of 
bail is dependant upon contextual facts of the matter and may vary from 
case to case – There cannot be any exhaustive parameters for considering 
the application for grant of bail – However, while granting bail the court 
has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, 
if the accusations entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support 
of the accusations – Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being 
tempered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant 
– Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge – Frivility 
of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of 
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail. 
[Para 12]
Bail – Cancellation of grant of bail – Factors to be considered: 
Held: There should be presence of cogent and overwhelming 
circumstances – Bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
471
manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have 
rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial – Each case would have unique 
facts peculiar to its own and the same would hold key for adjudication of bail 
matters including cancellation thereof – There may be circumstances where 
interference to or attempt to interfere with the course of administration of 
justice or evasion or attempt to evade to due course of justice are abuse of 
concession granted to the accused in any manner. [Paras 13, 16]
Delay/laches – Delay of more than one year in lodging an FIR – 
Eﬀ ect of, on the prosecution case:
Held: Delay by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case and the 
criminality attached to the incident would not disappear or get extinguished 
by virtue of such delay – It all depends upon facts that may unfold in given 
circumstances and same would vary from case to case – If the prosecution 
attempts to improvise its case stage by stage and step by step during the 
interregnum period, in such circumstances accused would be justiﬁ ed in 
contending that delay was fatal.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another 
(2004) 7 SCC 528; Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 
SCC 349: [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 
4 SCC 693; xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 
466; Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab 2021 SCC Online SC 854; Ram
Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 
526; Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 
SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165 – referred to. 
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2560 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2023 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRMBA No. 1540 of 2023.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2561 of 2023.
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER`
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Appearances:
Anuj Bhandari, Gaurav Jain, Rajat Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., S. K. Sinha, Ms. Seema Kashyap, 
Shubham Kashyap, Vivek Jain, Bhrigu Sharma, Puneet Parihar, Ms. Honey 
Kumbhat, Abhinav Jain, Rajat Jain, Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, Jagdish 
Chand Solanki, Ms. Yashika Bum, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals by way of special leave arises from the order 
dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 
2nd Bail Application No.219 of 2023 whereby the applications ﬁ led by the 
ﬁ rst Respondent in the respective appeals under Section 439 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) has been allowed 
and have been granted bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each 
for their presence in connection with the FIR No.94 of 2022 registered on 
the complaint of the appellant by Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa, 
Rajasthan for the oﬀ ences punishable under Section 376D, 384, 506 of the 
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), Section 3 to 6 of POCSO Act and 
Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST Act) and Section 66 of the
Information 
Technology Act, 2000.
Brief Background:
3. The appellant (original complainant) is the uncle of minor girl got 
registered an FIR No.94 of 2022 on 25.03.2022 with the jurisdictional 
police alleging gang rape, threat of making video of rape recorded viral 
and extortion which came to be registered for the oﬀ ences punishable under 
Section 376D, 384 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 3 to 6 of POCSO 
Act and Section 66D of IT Act. The said FIR was registered against Vivek, 
Deepak and Netram.
473
4. It is the case of the prosecution that minor girl “XXX” aged 15 
years and six months was studying in Class-X had got acquainted with a 
boy named Vivek and he seduced the minor girl and took her to Samleti 
Palace Hotel, Mandawar Road, Mahwa on February 24, 2021 and he along 
with his friends Deepak and Netram gang raped her after drugging and took 
videos of the incident. It was alleged that all of them had threatened her not 
to disclose the said incident as otherwise they would eliminate her father 
and brother make the video viral. It was further alleged in the complaint 
that accused persons proclaimed and they would not be harmed as they 
were powerful and as such the minor girl got scared and under the threat 
of video being circulated, she gave gold ornaments of her mother to said 
Vivek as instructed by him. It was also alleged that again Vivek had raped 
her under the threat of video being made viral and was extracting money 
from her. It was alleged that she was raped 4-5 times in the same hotel and 
she became weak and sick. Though enquires were made by her father and 
mother she had not revealed anything out of fear. It was also alleged that on 
2nd May, 2021 the marriage of his elder brother’s daughter took place and 
entire family was busy and at that point of time they forced the minor girl 
to permit Vivek and his companions to enter the house by putting pressure 
on her and the jewellery kept for the marriage was taken away by Vivek 
and his
accomplice. It was alleged in this regard an FIR No.142 of 2021 
was registered by the mother of minor girl with the Police Station, Raini. It 
was alleged that during the course of investigation the accused Vivek was 
interrogated and he confessed to have taken away the jewellery and thereafter 
they had continued to threaten the minor girl not to disclose about the rape 
as otherwise they would destroy her entire family. It is stated that on 24th
March, 2023, the minor girl had disclosed about the incident of 24.02.2021 
after much persuation and as such complainant sought for strict action being 
taken against the accused persons.
5. After investigation the charge-sheet came to be ﬁ led against Netram 
and Vivek only. However, the jurisdictional court took cognizance against 
Deepak @ Dileep Kumar @ Dipu by order dated 09.06.2022 for the oﬀ ence 
punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 376DA of the IPC and Section 5/6 of 
POCSO Act and thereafter the case has been registered and accused has 
been summoned. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that order taking 
cognizance by the jurisdictional court against Deepak was challenged before 
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
the High Court which came to be dismissed and same was challenged before 
this Court and later withdraw the petition.
6. The applications for grant of bail ﬁ led by the respondents in the 
respective appeals came to be dismissed by the special court vide order dated 
27.06.2022 and 11.01.2023 by the High Court. In the background of the 
bail application having been rejected the ﬁ rst respondent in the respective 
appeals have preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications under 
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan. 
By impugned order dated 06.04.2023 the High Court granted the relief in 
their favour and enlarged them on bail after taking into consideration the 
statement of the prosecutrix (victim) recorded during the course of trial and 
by taking into consideration the possibility of time being consumed for trial. 
The complainant being aggrieved by the grant of bail has preferred these 
appeals by special leave.
Contentions of the Appellant (for the Complainant)
7. It is contended that oﬀ ences alleged against the accused are heinous 
oﬀ ences punishable with minimum sentence for life and attracts minimum 
sentence of 20 years. He would contend that victim in her statement 
recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as well Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 
has categorically stated that all the accused persons have committed gang 
rape and same has been reiterated in her deposition which has
remained 
unshattered and therefore, prima facie, case for conviction has been made 
out. It is contended that one of the accused (Deepak) is son of a sitting MLA 
and the chances of tampering with the evidence during the trial if enlarged 
on bail is writ large; it is evident from the investigation that entries in the 
hotel register of the date of incident are missing; the CCTV footage of the 
hotel on the date of incident has been deleted; school records of the victim 
has been manipulated; telephone number of Deepak obtained by the police 
is a wrong number; name of Deepak had surprisingly disappeared from the 
charge-sheet though victim girl had speciﬁ cally stated in all her statements 
before the investigating oﬃ  cer the role of Deepak and though his name 
appeared in FIR. 
8. He would also contend that there has been threat posed to the father 
of the minor girl, who is an ordinary police constable to withdraw the 
complaint and other witnesses are also being threatened and none of these 
aspects has been considered by the High Court and as such it has resulted
475
in an erroneous order being passed for granting bail. Hence, he seeks for 
cancellation of the bail which has been granted by the High Court.
Contentions of the Respondent Counsel:
9. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 
respondent would support the impugned order passed by the High Court 
and would contend that fact of the complaint having been lodged after a 
lapse of one year after the date of alleged incident was a glaring defect in 
the prosecution theory; she would also contend that during the course of 
investigation it was found from school records where victim was studying 
was present at the school on the date of incident and prima facie complaint 
looks frivolous; in the data record of telephone related to the accused 
Dileep @ Deepak obtained during investigation revealed he was found to 
be 40 to 80 KM away from the place of incident on the date of incident and 
prima facie it reveals he has been falsely implicated; the ﬁ rst respondent 
(Deepak) had no connection with or relationship with the prosecutrix and 
no call was ever made by him to the prosecutrix or vice versa. It is also 
contended that accused Vivek was known to the prosecutrix as is evident 
from various calls made by Vivek to her and during the course of the trial 
in her deposition she admitted that she was getting calls from Vivek and 
Netram but there was no connection whatsoever between the prosecutrix 
and respondent No.1 - Deepak. She would also contend that
between the 
date of incident i.e. 24.02.2021 and the date of registration of FIR No.94 of 
2022 on 25.03.2022 there was yet another FIR No.142 of 2021 registered 
by the mother of the victim regarding theft of jewellery against Vivek and 
there was no whisper of rape against respondent (Deepak) or others and 
the investigating oﬃ  cer is said to have recovered the jewellery from the 
accused Vivek. This chain of events would indicate that ﬁ rst respondent – 
Deepak had no remote connection to the alleged incident of rape and he 
has been roped in to settle political scores. It is in these circumstances the 
investigating oﬃ  cer had found no material which can be imputed to point 
the guilt of the ﬁ rst respondent (Deepak) and as such he had ﬁ led a closure 
report while ﬁ ling the charge-sheet against other two accused. She would 
also contend that ﬁ rst respondent (Deepak) is innocent of the alleged oﬀ ence 
and, hence, she has prayed for rejection of the appeals.
10. Learned counsel appearing for Netram Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 
No.6200 of 2023 has contended that there has been delay of 13 months 
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
in lodging the FIR; he would also contend that during the course of trial 
prosecution has made certain admissions which would depict there being a 
hole in prosecution theory, hence, he has sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the State, by reiterating the 
contentions urged in the counter aﬃ  davits ﬁ led in the respective appeals, has 
prayed for the bail granted in favour of Netram being set aside or in other 
words, the appeal being allowed and has sailed along with the complainant. 
Whereas in the counter aﬃ  davit that has been ﬁ led opposing the bail in 
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6199 of 2023 against the order granting 
bail in favour of respondent – Deepak, the State has virtually supported the 
defence of the accused Deepak and the material collected during the course 
of investigation, to stave oﬀ  the claim of the complainant. Hence, he has 
prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means 
that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and 
not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependant upon contextual 
facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case 
to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering 
the application for grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in
mind factors such as 
the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations 
entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the 
accusations; 
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tempered with or 
the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should 
also weight with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing 
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be 
always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only 
the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the 
matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as
477
to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, 
the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.
We may also proﬁ tably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan 
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 
SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of 
bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. 
The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious 
manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting 
bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation 
of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to 
indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail 
was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having 
committed a serious oﬀ ence. Any order devoid of such reasons would 
suﬀ er from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court 
granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following 
factors also before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of 
conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or 
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See 
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3
SCC 598 : 2002 
SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC 
(Cri) 1124] .)”
13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made 
for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent and overwhelming circumstances 
must be present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical 
manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have 
rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support 
from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of 
Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh 
(1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511.
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
14. This Court in Daulat Ram’s case has held that the cancellation of the 
bail has to be dealt on a diﬀ erent footing in comparison to a proceeding for 
grant of bail. It has also been held that there can be supervening circumstances 
which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to the fair 
trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail and this principle has been 
reiterated time and again and more recently in the Judgment of Ms. X v. 
State of Telangana (supra).
15. This Court in Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab 2021 SCC 
Online SC 854 has added caveat to the above principles and has further 
held that bail can also be revoked where the Court has considered irrelevant 
factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the 
order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the oﬀ ence, conduct of 
the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the 
investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a 
Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage 
of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system. 
16. No doubt each case would have unique facts peculiar to its own 
and the same would hold key for adjudication of bail matters including 
cancellation thereof. There may be circumstances where interference to or 
attempt to interfere with the course of administration of justice or
evasion 
or attempt to evade to due course of justice are abuse of concession granted 
to the accused in any manner.
17. The oﬀ ence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be 
a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of 
;= uk;ZLrq iwT;Urs jeUrs r= nsork% (where women are respected Gods live 
there) would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by 
process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the 
society or in spite of there being prima facie material being present they are 
allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are 
likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing 
them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior 
court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to 
erroneous orders being passed by courts below.
18. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 
3 SCC 598 has held as under:
479
“9. Undoubtedly, considerations applicable to the grant of bail and 
considerations for cancellation of such an order of bail are independent 
and do not overlap each other, but in the event of non-consideration 
of considerations relevant for the purpose of grant of bail and in the 
event an earlier order of rejection available on the records, it is a duty 
incumbent on the High Court to explicitly state the reasons as to why 
the sudden departure in the order of grant as against the rejection just 
about a month ago. The subsequent FIR is on record and incorporated 
therein are the charges under Sections 323 and 504 IPC in which the 
charge-sheet have already been issued — the court ought to take note 
of the facts on record rather than ignoring them. In any event, the 
discretion to be used shall always have to be strictly in accordance 
with law and not dehors the same. The High Court thought it ﬁ t not to 
record any reason, far less any cogent reason, as to why there should 
be a departure when in fact such a petition was dismissed earlier not 
very long ago. The consideration of the period of one year spent in jail 
cannot in our view be a relevant consideration in the matter of grant of 
bail, more so by reason of the fact that the oﬀ ence charged is that of 
murder under Section 302 IPC having the punishment of death or life 
imprisonment — it is a heinous crime against the society and as such 
the court ought to be rather circumspect and cautious in its
approach in 
a matter which stands out to be a social crime of a very serious nature.”
19. Similar is the opinion of this Court in Prashanta Kumar Sarkar 
v. Ashish Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 has held as under:
“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly 
unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere 
with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to 
the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to 
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance 
with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this 
Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, 
the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for 
bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe 
that the accused had committed the oﬀ ence;
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or ﬂ eeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the oﬀ ence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being inﬂ uenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”
20. Keeping the aforesaid analysis of law when we turn our attention to 
the facts on hand it would not detain us too long to arrive at a conclusion that 
High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by the fact that there has 
been delay in ﬁ ling the complaint i.e. 13 months for granting bail in favour 
of accused persons viz, respondents in respective appeals. The allegation 
made in the complaint relates to gang rape of a minor girl who is aged 15 
years six months, studying in Class X. The fact of her father being a police 
constable who is far below in the hierarchy of service cannot be lost sight 
of. One of the respondents against whom allegations have been made is 
the son of a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly – MLA. Yet another 
accused – Vivek seems to have criminal antecedents and the third accused 
is the Manager of the Hotel where the alleged incident of gang rape had 
occurred. On investigation, the charge-sheet came to be ﬁ led against two 
accused only, namely, Vivek and Netram,
though in the complaint a speciﬁ c 
allegation of rape has been made against Deepak he was dropped. It is in 
this background, at the instance of the complainant, the jurisdictional court 
took cognizance of the oﬀ ence against Deepak vide order dated 09.06.2022 
and this order was challenged before the High Court in Criminal Revision 
No.979 of 2022 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2022 
and the special leave petition ﬁ led challenging the same in Special Leave 
Petition (Criminal) No.9458 of 2022 came to be withdrawn on 03.02.2022. 
Thus, order of taking cognizance by the jurisdictional Sessions Court against 
Deepak has attained ﬁ nality.
21. In this background, the contention or plea of delay being fatal to 
the prosecution when examined, it would, prima facie, indicate that in the 
complaint/FIR which has been registered on 25.03.2022 relevant to the 
incident dated 24.02.2021 the reason has been assigned namely constant
481
threat posed by the accused persons as stated in the complaint itself. It 
is in this background it will have to be seen as to whether in the societal 
circumstances the minor girl was placed, her tender age, then prevailing 
circumstances and the purported video depicting her nudity and the constant 
threat being posed to victim of video of rape which had been recorded being 
made viral in the event of prosecutrix informing anyone of the incident are 
factors which cannot be brushed aside which resulted in delay in ﬁ ling the 
complaint. In other words, delay by itself would not be fatal for all times 
to come and the criminality attached to the incident would not evaporate 
into thin air or get extinguished by virtue of such delay. It all depends upon 
facts that may unfold in given circumstances and same would vary from 
case to case. On the other hand, if the prosecution attempts to improvise its 
case stage by stage and step by step during the interregnum period, in such 
circumstances accused would be justiﬁ ed in contending that delay was fatal 
to stave oﬀ  the proceedings initiated against such accused. Thus, it depends 
on facts that would unfold in a given case. In the aforesaid background 
the fact of delay in the instant case prima facie cannot be held against the 
prosecution or in other words on the ground of delay in lodging FIR the 
genuineness of the complaint cannot be viewed with coloured glasses nor it 
can be held that by itself would be suﬃ  cient
ground to enlarge the accused 
on bail.
22. The accused in the instant case, namely, Deepak was apprehended 
by the jurisdictional Sessions Court by executing the arrest warrant on 
09.01.2023. He did not initially surrender after being charge-sheeted or 
participate in the investigation even after arrest warrant being issued by 
the trial court. 
23. The fact that accused Deepak is the son of sitting MLA would 
disclose the domineering inﬂ uence he would wield not only in delaying 
the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile from 
their statement given during the course of investigation or pose threat to 
them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his 
dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence 
of the accused.
24. The prosecutrix has made allegations against the concerned 
accused-respondents and it becomes amply clear from the plain reading 
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
of the complaint as well as the testimony of the prosecutrix that accused 
persons had indeed participated in the gang rape. She also states that she 
was threatened that if she were to inform any family member of the alleged 
rape incident, they would make the video of rape to go viral. During the 
course of investigation of the FIR registered for gang rape, it was found that 
entries maintained at Hotel Samleti Palace, relevant to the date of incident 
was speciﬁ cally missing; the CCTV cameras at the Hotel though found, the 
CCTV footage of the date of incident was not available; Vivek had called 
the prosecutrix several times and had exchanged number of messages; 
Vivek and Netram were in regular touch on phone and after the incident, 
accused Deepak was dropped from the charge-sheet only on the ground that 
call details of his mobile provided to the investigating authorities did not 
disclose about his presence at the scene of the incident on that particular 
date and as such the charge-sheet was ﬁ led only against Vivek and Netram. 
The prosecutrix had also named Deepak having participated in the incident 
of gang rape in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the 
Cr.P.C. and had also named him in the FIR. It is only on the strength of the 
application ﬁ led by complaint under Section 190-193 of Cr.P.C., the trial 
court took cognizance against Deepak for the oﬀ ences punishable under 
Section 376D and section 5
of POCSO Act and said order has reached 
ﬁ nality, as already noticed hereinabove.
25. The complainant’s grievance, through-out has been that Deepak 
had been threatening the prosecutrix and other witnesses and that there 
is every possibility of threat to their life in the event they depose to the 
truth, and such apprehension is justiﬁ able, especially because accused 
is in a domineering position. The complainant underlines the inﬂ uence 
and possibility of the clout being wielded on the witnesses which cannot 
be discounted. The fact that even after recording of the deposition of the 
prosecutrix other prosecution witnesses have not come forward to tender 
evidence though more than nine dates of hearing has passed, would lend 
credence to the apprehension of the complainant. The High Court seems to 
have erred in not considering these basic facts while considering the prayer 
for grant of bail by taking into consideration the well-established judicial 
pronouncements already noticed hereinabove. That the court framed charges, 
prima facie discloses the possibility and reasonable suspicion of the accused 
prima facie culpability.
483
26. The Courts have placed the liberty of an individual at a high pedestal 
and extended the protection to such rights whenever and wherever required. 
In the same breadth, it requires to be noticed that emphasis has also been laid 
on furnishing reasons for granting while balancing it with the requirement 
of a fair trialbail even though such reasoning may be brief. 
27. In the aforesaid circumstances, we notice that the impugned order 
granting bail is not only bereft of material particulars which would justify 
grant of bail, but it seems that the High Court has got swayed on the ground 
of delay and the video having not been recovered during the course of 
investigation and has given a complete go by to the allegation made in the 
FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. as also 
the testimony of the prosecutrix before the jurisdictional court. 
28. Hence, we are of the considered view, that order of the High Court 
requires to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. We hereby direct 
that the accused/respondents shall surrender before the jurisdictional court 
within two weeks from today failing which they shall be taken into custody 
We make it clear that they will be at liberty to seek bail after the evidence/
depositions of the remaining witnesses are recorded and in the event of such 
an application being ﬁ led, the High Court shall consider the same on its 
own merits and without being inﬂ uenced by any of the observations made
hereinabove. We also make it clear that the jurisdictional court shall not be 
inﬂ uenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and are limited to 
present proceedings. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeals allowed.
Nidhi Jain
BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK 
AND ANOTHER [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]