Supreme Court Refuses To Grant Bail To Two Convicts In 2015 Jindal University Gang-Rape Case

At the outset, Mr. Rohatgi had apprised the Bench of the remit of the notice issued in the matter. He put forth the issue as, “Whether it is a case of gang rape or repeated assault”. He submitted that the incident took place about 8 years ago when they were in college and there is no material to substantiate the allegations of gang rape. Mr. Rohatgi added that there was a third accused who was acquitted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In view of the same, he submitted that

“it would be a case for bail”.

Justice Kaul enquired, “How much is the sentence for rape?”

Mr. Rohatgi responded that the minimum sentence for rape is 10 years.

Justice Kaul said, “But, they have not completed 10 years.”

Mr. Rohatgi submitted that his argument is with respect to the purpose of grant of bail, since the accused have served half the sentence.

Justice Kaul opined that in the present proceedings the Court is only considering whether the accused are guilty of a higher offence or not. The charges and conviction under rape being undisputed they ought to serve out the minimum sentence of 10 years before being considered for grant of bail.

“When we issue notice it is on the presumption that they are guilty of rape, so they will get 10 years. That 10 years is not completed. Only on completion of 10 years will the question (of bail) come. That 10 years you have to serve out, because there is no doubt about that offence (rape). You are charged and proved with respect to that offence. Whether you are guilty of a higher offence or not is the question before us. That being the position you have to serve out the sentence of the undisputed charge.”

Mr. Luthra submitted that his client was on the same footing as the accused who was acquitted by the High Court. Justice Kaul repeated, “The minimum sentence is 10 years. Not even the maximum sentence. You have to serve that before anything can be done to you.”

The Bench has granted leave on the limited issue and had listed the matter for hearing on the regular board in the week commencing 13th September, 2023.

The incident came to light in 2015, the prosecutrix complained that her batchmate Hardik Sikri had blackmailed her with threats of sharing her private pictures and forced her to have sex with him and his two friends Vikas Garg and Karan Chhabra.

In May 2017, the accused were pronounced guilty by a trial court - Sikri and Chhabra were sentenced to 20 years in prison and Garg was sentenced to seven years in prison under section 376D, 376(2)(n), 120B, 292, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 67A of Information Technology Act.

In 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Sikri and Chhabra, but acquitted Garg giving him a benefit of doubt.

In 2017, the High Court's order suspending the sentence in the case had created a controversy in view of the adverse observations made against the conduct of the victim. The High Court's order was later stayed by the Supreme Court.

[Case Title: Karan v. State of Haryana SLP(Crl) No. 12801/2022 and Hardik v. State of Haryana SLP(Crl) No. 48/2023]