Bail Denied in Gang Rape Case Involving Premeditated Deceit and Forced Intoxication of Victim

The applicants, Ravichand Persiya and Tejmani, filed a first bail application following their arrest on 20.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 09/2026

The prosecution alleged that on 18.01.2026, the accused lured the victim to Wadrafnagar under the pretext of job placement

It is alleged that the victim was taken to a room, forced to consume alcohol, and subsequently gang-raped by the two applicants and a third associate, Deepak Kushwaha

The applicants argued for bail on the grounds of false implication, lack of incriminating evidence in the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, a negative medical report, and a lack of criminal antecedents

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the material on record?

The Court primarily considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant regular bail

Substantively, the charges were framed under Section 70(1) (Gang Rape) and Section 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court relied on settled principles of bail jurisprudence, which mandate evaluating the gravity of the offense, the manner of commission, the consistency of the victim's statement, and the potential for witness tampering or evidence influence by the accused

The Court balanced the applicants' claims of innocence and negative medical reports against the gravity of the prosecution's allegations

It noted that the FIR was lodged promptly and the victim’s statement appeared consistent at this stage, establishing a prima facie case of premeditated deceit and sexual assault

The Court reasoned that the "grave and serious" nature of the gang rape, coupled with the manner in which the victim was rendered vulnerable through forced intoxication, weighed against the grant of bail

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the potential risk of the applicants influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if released before the conclusion of the trial

The Court held that given the heinous nature of the offense and the prima facie evidence of common intention and sexual assault, no ground for leniency was made out

The trial court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously