The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application for the interim suspension of sentence filed by a gang rape convict, ruling that filing successive applications on identical grounds after failing to surrender on time constitutes a “clear abuse of the process of the court.” Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the appellant for attempting to “try his luck” through repetitive litigation.
Background
The appellant, Rajan (Accused No. 1), was convicted in 2019 for the gang rape of a 14-year-old girl that occurred in June 2010. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(g), 342, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The current application, filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), sought an eight-week interim suspension of sentence to allow the appellant to attend to his mother during her scheduled gallbladder surgery on May 9, 2026.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel contended that Rajan is the only son and his presence was essential for the pre-operative and post-operative care of his mother, who suffers from cholelithiasis.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State strongly opposed the plea, highlighting that the appellant had been repeatedly seeking interim relief on similar grounds. The State argued that the application lacked bona fides and was a strategic move to avoid serving the sentence.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court conducted a detailed review of the appellant’s litigation history since 2019, uncovering a pattern of non-compliance and repetitive filings:
- Medical Pleas: The Court noted that as far back as November 2019, the appellant had obtained interim bail for his mother’s surgery. In August 2020, he was again granted 20 days for the same reason but failed to surrender on time.
- Non-Surrender: In May 2021, while seeking bail for his wife’s pregnancy, the Court observed he had not surrendered following his previous release. Non-bailable warrants were subsequently issued, leading to his arrest in March 2022.
- Other Grounds: Successive pleas were filed for his daughter’s first birthday and school admission formalities, many of which were withdrawn when the Court appeared disinclined to grant relief.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that the current medical plea also contained discrepancies, as the hospital report indicated a tentative surgery date in June 2026, contradicting the appellant’s claim of a May 9 schedule.
The Court delivered a sharp critique of the appellant’s strategy:
“Therefore, the strategy seems to be to somehow get an interim order of suspension and thereafter keep seeking for extension on the ground that the surgery could not be conducted… It appears that the applicant/appellant/accused is trying his luck by filing successive applications. When he finds that the court is not inclined to allow the same, he withdraws the same and after a short interval comes up with another application.”
The Court further noted:
“It is also seen that on early occasions, he had never surrendered in time. This is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of the court.”
Decision
Emphasizing the gravity of the gang rape conviction and the appellant’s documented conduct, the Court found no bona fides in the application. The High Court dismissed the plea and directed the appellant to deposit ₹25,000 with the ‘Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee’ within one month.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rajan v. State
- Case No.: CRL.A. 1195/2019 [CRL.M.(BAIL) 920/2026]
- Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
- Date: May 12, 2026
