Ajeet Singh Katiyar vs State

V.K. Shali, J.

Crl. M.B. No. 561/2012

This is an application for suspension of sentence and for enlargement of the appellant on bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

It has been contended by the learned counsel that there are fundamental flaws in the conviction of the appellant for an offence of gang rape. It has

been stated by him that the police has not proved the identity of all the accused persons on the basis of which they were arrested and sent for trial.

It has also been contended that the doctor opined that the DNA test of the appellant and the prosecutrix be got done, however, the same was

not done. It has also been contended that the prosecution''s case is that two cars were used for the purpose of abducting the prosecutrix, one was

Santro car and the other was Zen while as, none of them has been recovered. It has also been urged that the appellant is alleged to have shown the

gun to the prosecutrix, in order to make her submit to the dictates of the accused persons which has also not been recovered and this clearly

shows that the prosecution''s story is not corroborated. On the basis of these facts, it has been stated since the petitioner has already undergone

almost half of the sentence out of 14 years, therefore, he be enlarged on bail.

The learned APP has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the appellant. He has contended that this is a case where a young girl was

subjected to gang rape by four persons within a short span of couples of hours, having been abducted in a car near Dhaula Kuan. In this regard, he

took the Court through the testimony of the prosecutrix who has given a graphic description as to how she was subjected to criminal assault by

these beasts including the appellant, who was duly identified by the prosecutrix.

The learned APP has stated that no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is required when she had clearly identified the accused

persons and has stated that she was raped by the appellant and the other accused persons.

I have carefully considered the submissions. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has been convicted for an offence of gang rape, there is

a seal of judicial approval on the prosecution''s case. It cannot be said that there is no case against the appellant. As a matter of fact, the

prosecution''s case stand on a higher footing then what was there, when the trial was being faced by the appellant. Even during the course of the

trial, the appellant was not able to get any bail, if that be the factual position, he hardly deserves to be enlarged on bail now, as there is a seal of

judicial approval.

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case where the sentence of the appellant be suspended and he be enlarged

on bail. The application is dismissed.

Crl. A. No. 898/2010

List the appeal in the category of ''Regulars'' on its own turn.