Delhi High Court
Ajeet Singh Katiyar vs State on 10 July, 2012
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Criminal Appeal No.898/2010
Date of Decision: 10.07.2012
AJEET SINGH KATIYAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Joginder Tuli and Ms.Azma
Zaidi, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.B.No.561/2012
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence and for
enlargement of the appellant on bail.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The application is dismissed.
Crl.A.No.898/2010
List the appeal in the category of 'Regulars' on its own turn.
V.K. SHALI, J
JULY 10, 2012
RN
