logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 672 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : Bail Appln. No. 1892 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties : Gurpreet Singh Versus State (NCT Of Delhi)
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Abhir Datt, Varnika Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP.
Date of Judgment : 07-10-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Section 376D/328/506/34 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 8845,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 376D/328/506/34 IPC

2. Catch Words:
- anticipatory bail
- proclaimed offender
- gang rape
- acquittal
- bail
- personal bond
- surety

3. Summary:
The accused applied for anticipatory bail in FIR No.219/2023 for offences under Sections 376D, 328, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The trial court’s order declaring him a proclaimed offender was recalled and entered into the record. The alleged gang‑rape complaint was filed two years after the incident; the co‑accused was acquitted as the prosecutrix did not appear before the trial court. The accused, now residing in Canada, argued the FIR’s version was implausible and sought relief. The prosecution, noting the prosecutrix is untraceable and the accused is no longer a proclaimed offender, raised no serious objection. The court found no justification to deny liberty and ordered bail upon arrest with a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and a surety of equal amount.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

Judgment (Oral)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.219/2023 of Police Station Rajouri Garden for offence under Section 376D/328/506/34 IPC.

2. In furtherance of last order, learned counsel for accused/applicant has submitted across the board, a copy of order dated 26.09.2026 of the learned trial court, whereby the order declaring the accused/applicant a Proclaimed Offender has been recalled. The said order dated 26.09.2026 is accepted across the board to be made part of the record.

3. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are that the complaint, alleging gang rape was filed by the prosecutrix two years after the alleged incident. The prosecutrix alleged that she had been gang raped by the present accused/applicant and co-accused Ramandeep Singh. The co-accused Ramandeep Singh was acquitted after full dress trial since the prosecutrix never appeared before the trial court. Since the present accused/applicant had shifted to Canada and was declared Proclaimed Offender, he is yet to undergo trial. Hence, the present application for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant, taking me through the FIR, submits that the version of the alleged incident as narrated by the prosecutrix in her FIR does not sound believable. In any case, since prosecutrix did not appear before the trial court, leading to acquittal of the co-accused, the present accused deserves relief, as per him.

5. Learned APP, assisted by IO/SI Gunjan Sirohi, in all fairness submits that since the prosecutrix is not even traceable and now the accused/applicant is no more a Proclaimed Offender, there is no serious objection to this application for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

7. The application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.
 
  CDJLawJournal