1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1768    OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1840/2010)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN                        Appellant(s)                      :VERSUS:

BHARAT BHUSHAN PAREEK & ORS.              Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1769    OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1846/2010)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN                        Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

BHARAT BHUSHAN PAREEK & ORS.              Respondent(s)

AND

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 2332 /2011

BHOLU @ SURJEET YADAV                      Appellant(s)                      :VERSUS:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN   

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEALS @ SLP(CRL) Nos.1840 & 1846 OF 2010: 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals emanate from the judgment and  

orders dated 15.12.2009 passed by the learned Single  

Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan  

in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.595 of  

2009 and 599 of 2009.   

2

3. This is a gang rape case. In the impugned  

judgment  the  High  court  has  observed  that  ample  

opportunities were  provided to  the prosecution  to  

produce the witnesses but the same have not been  

availed  by  the  prosecution,  on  the  contrary,  the  

Special Public Prosecutor remained absent on several  

occasions and he appears to be not interested in  

completion of the trial of this case.   

4. In the impugned judgment the High Court was  

justified  in  observing  that  the  conduct  of  the  

prosecution  in  the  entire  case  has   been  

reprehensible. Ordinarily this Court would not have  

interfered with the impugned judgment but for the  

fact that this is a very serious crime of gang rape,  

therefore, this unusual latitude is granted to the  

State.  Otherwise  order-sheet  of  the  Trial  Court  

clearly  reveal  the  conduct  of  the  prosecution  in  

this case.  

5. All the accused, including Rajesh Chaudhary,  

Harish Sihag and Narendra Sihag have already been  

released on bail.  

3

6. In the facts and circumstances of this case,  

looking to the conduct of the State in the entire  

case, we direct the State of Rajasthan to pay Rs.2  

lakhs as costs to the Rajasthan State Legal Services  

Authority within four weeks from today.  

7. The concerned District & Sessions Judge is  

directed to conduct an inquiry as to why this matter  

has been proceeded in this manner and take action  

against erring officials/persons and submit a report  

to this Court within four months from today.   

8. Dr.  Manish  Singhvi,  learned  Additional  

Advocate  General  appearing  for  the  State  of  

Rajasthan  submitted  that  accused  Nos.1  to  7  have  

already cross-examined the prosecutrix in this case.  

Accused  Nos.8  to  12  have  not  cross-examined  the  

prosecutrix.   

9. Looking to the fact that this is a gang rape  

case and in the larger interest of justice, we grant  

one more opportunity to the State of Rajasthan to  

lead  evidence  in  this  case  including  cross-

examination  of  the  prosecutrix.  Let  the  entire

4

prosecution evidence be concluded positively on or  

before 30th November, 2011.  

10. We direct the parties to appear before the  

Fast Track Court on 19th September, 2011.  

11. The learned Presiding Judge of the Fast Track  

Court shall proceed to conduct the trial of this  

case  on  day-to-day  basis  and  shall  not  grant  

unnecessary  adjournments  either  on  behalf  of  the  

State or any of the accused and conclude the trial  

as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within  

six months from the date of communication of this  

order.           

12. In  view  of  the  order  passed  above,  the  

impugned orders passed by the High Court are set  

aside and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.  

S.L.P.(CRL.) No. 2332 OF 2011:

13. The petitioner would be at liberty to move  

the Trial Court for grant of bail. We request the  

Trial Court to conclude the trial in this case also  

as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within  

six months from the date of communication of this  

order.  

5

14. The special leave petition is dismissed with  

the aforementioned observation.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; September 9, 2011.