This case is based on Special Leave Petition, which has been arise from the order of the High Court that grants bail to the accused (respondent) who were alleged of gang rape of a minor girl. Not only gang rape but also threatening and extorting her for the same. This case has been filed by the uncle of that minor girl (appellant) on challenging the granting of bail by High Court and arguing about the seriousness or depth of the offences, the risk and possibility of evidence tampering and threatening to the evidence etc. The Respondent has argued that there is political motivation behind the case and also claimed their guilt freeness. By considering all the factors like nature of accusation, chance of tampering and threatening evidence etc. the Supreme Court examine the bail petition. This step of Supreme Court shows the importance of fair trial, and effect of the same in the society as well as the role of the court to avoid miscarriage of justice. Subsequently the Apex court throws away the granted bail and ordered the respondents to hand themselves over to the judiciary by stressing over the requirement of a comprehensive review of facts and evidences.

Keywords – Gang rape, extortion, special leave petition, political motivation, discretion, witness depositions, minor girl


Judgement Cause Title“Bhagwan Singh vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak.”
Case Number6199 of 2023
Judgement Date23rd august 2023
CourtSupreme Court of India
QuorumAravind Kumar, S. Ravindra Bhat
AuthorAravind Kumar
Citation2023SCC online SC 1059
Legal Provisions InvolvedSec 376 D, 384, AND 506 of IPC Sec 326, 376 (2)(n), 376 DA of POCSO Sec 439 of CrPC Sec 66 of IT Act, 2000


Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak involves severe charges of gang rape, threats, and extortion against a juvenile girl. The appellant, Bhagwan Singh, petitioned the Supreme Court for special permission to challenge a High Court ruling which granted bail to the respondents in the case. The case has important legal and cultural ramifications for the granting of bail in situations involving horrendous crimes against kids. Vivek, Deepak, and Netram raped Bhagwan Singh’s niece and warned her not to tell anybody about the occurrence. Netram and Vivek were charged, with and Deepak later implicated. Despite the gravity of the offences and the probable harm to witnesses and evidence tampering, the High Court granted the respondent’s bail. This result caused the appellant to file an appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the High Court’s bail order. The case involves difficult legal concerns related to bail, witness protection, and the pursuit of justice in situations involving crimes against minors. It emphasises the requirement for a fair trial and the seriousness of offences while ruling on bail petitions.


This is a case which is based on gangrape to a juvenile/minor girl. In this case, the respondents were alleged of gang rape to a minor girl. In the case it has been alleged that the accused VIVEK, one of the accused, seduced the minor girl and took her to a hotel. After that he along with the co accused namely Deepak and Netram drugged her. When she was unconscious, they gang raped her along with shoot the video of that work. After getting her consciousness back, The girl tried to go back her home and during that time she had been threatened to not disclose anything in front of anyone. If she does anything like that, they will make the rape video viral and this will damage the family of her. Primarily the girl remained silent and didn’t say anything about the occurrence. During the family function at her home, the accused had threatened and extorted money and jewellery from her as well. After this incident the girl spoke out everything in front of her family and on the basis of her words the appellant, uncle of the victim had filed a complaint in the police station.  

The case went to trial and during the trial period the High Court grant bail to the accused. By challenging the decision of the High Court, victim’s uncle filled and Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.


  1. Whether the High Court’s grant of bail to the respondents was warranted considering the nature of the accused offences, which include gang rape, extortion, and threat?
  2. Whether the probable danger of tampering with evidence and frightening witnesses appropriately weighed by the High Court while granted bail to the respondents?
  3. Whether the court should consider the societal effect and sensitivity surrounding cases of sexual offences against minors when considering whether to grant bail to the accused?
  4. Whether the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled to guarantee a fair trial, safeguard the victim’s rights, and maintain public faith in the legal system?


The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that;

  1. The petitioner claims that the charges against the accused are exceedingly serious, including gang rape, threats, and extortion against a minor girl. These offences have grave legal consequences and need close judicial investigation.
  2. 2.  He also submitted that the victim’s remarks recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and her deposition before the court establishes a prima facie case against the accused. The victim’s persistent statements about the accused’s involvement in the offences are adequate grounds for conviction.
  3. The petitioner emphasises the considerable danger of witness intimidation presented by the defendants, particularly considering their claimed threats and aggressive techniques. The victim’s and her family members’ safety and security, as well as those of other prospective witnesses, are top priorities that the court must carefully examine.
  4. The petitioner highlights concern regarding suspected evidence tampering, such as missing entries in hotel registers and erased CCTV video, calling into question the investigation’s integrity and the credibility of the defence’s evidence.
  5. While conceding the delay in submitting the complaint, the petitioner claims that genuine grounds exist for the delay, such as the victim’s fear of retaliation and the accused’s repeated threats. The delay should not impair the credibility of the claims or diminish the gravity of the crimes committed.
  6.  The petitioner also emphasises the necessity of securing a fair trial for all parties concerned and protecting the public interest in pursuing horrific crimes, particularly those involving assault against minors. Granting bail to the accused may jeopardise the judicial process and undermine justice for the victim and family.


The counsels for Respondent submitted that;

  1. The respondent denies the allegations, emphasising that one of the accused, Deepak, had no direct link to the rape and extortion episode. They claim he was unfairly implicated to settle political scores, as proven by the absence of evidence tying him to the crimes.
  2. The respondents argue that there is insufficient evidence to implicate them in the alleged crimes. They emphasise the lack of definitive evidence, such as retrieved CCTV video or other supporting evidence, to back up the prosecution’s case against them.
  3.  The responses provide an alternate narrative that contradicts the prosecution’s account of events.
  4. The respondents also raised points about the delay in bringing the complaint, questioning the intentions behind the timing of the charges and claiming that it may damage the prosecution’s case. They contend that the delay calls into question the truth of the charges and demonstrates the complainant’s lack of urgency or sincerity.
  5. The respondents emphasise the basic premise of presumption of innocence, asserting their entitlement to fair treatment under the law and arguing against pre-judgment or discriminatory treatment based on untested charges. They ask for a fair and balanced approach to the matter while protecting their rights as accused persons.
  6.  Finally, the respondents highlighted the probable repercussions of long-term detention before trial, such as disruptions to their life and livelihood. They advocate for their right to liberty and fair treatment in the court process, opposing pretrial imprisonment without adequate proof of guilt.


This case involves the following legal provisions:

  1.  Sections 376D, 384, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) address offences such as rape, extortion, and criminal intimidation, respectively.
  2.  provision 66D of the Information Technology Act of 2000 – This provision addresses the penalties for cheating by personation while utilising a computer resource.
  3.  Section 66 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 addresses computer-related offences such as hacking and data theft.
  4. provision 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – This provision addresses the competence of the High Court and the Court of Sessions to issue bail.
  5.  Sections 376(2)(n) and 376DA of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deal with severe types of rape.
  6. provision 326 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – Under the POCSO Act, this provision addresses the punishment for causing grave harm by an acid assault, among other things.


The Supreme Court of India ruled in the matter of Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak on August 23, 2023 and overturned the High Court ruling granted bail to the accused/respondents.

While deciding the matter, the Apex court ruled against the decision of High Court. The court held that the grant of bail by the High Court is not justified and it has been rejected on the same ground. The Apex Court after setting aside this also directed the accused/respondents to surrender before the court having competent jurisdiction oof the matter, within 2 weeks of this judgement. If they fail to do so, they will be taken into custody as directed by the Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court also stated that the respondents will also be in the liberty to seek bail from the competent court only after the completion of rest procedure of the case. As directed by the Apex Court the High Court will decide this case on its own merit and decide the final verdict of the case without being influenced by anyone. The jurisdictional court was admonished not to be swayed by the observations made in the judgement.

    While the respondent argued about the delay in making the complaint, the court observed its practicality and understood the submission from the appellant side and held that delay in making complaint doesn’t diminish the gravity of case. The court highlighted bail’s discretionary character while also protecting the rights of victims and the impartiality of the criminal justice system. It also addressed the significance of ensuring a fair trial for everyone concerned, as well as safeguarding witnesses from intimidation and coercion. By considering the age of the victim the court understood the practicality of the situation and approved the appeal as well as order the High Court to decide the case without being biased to anyone.


The decision of the Supreme court in this case proves the fairness and transparency of the judicial system in India. By quashing the bail order of the high court after observing the whole fact, is a great example of dedication of the judiciary towards equal and fair justice.This decision concluded that the balance between both rights of victim and safeguard of them are equally important to decide a case. By denying the bail order of the High Court, Apex court also shows how important it is to analyse every fact critically and give the judgement on the same. This judgement also mentioned about the basis of judgement which is the concept of Natural Justice without being biased towards anyone. And finally, this verdict again made the public to believe on the judicial system as it serves justice with the most transparent way possible.

Important statute referred

  1. The Constitution of India
  2. Indian Penal Code,1860
  3. Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2012
  4. Information and Technology Act,2000
  5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973


Leave a Reply