"Allegations Serious": Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail To Man Who Allegedly Chopped Off A Person's Private Parts

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday denied bail to a man accused of kidnapping and chopping of the private parts of another man as it noted that the allegations against him are serious in nature.

The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan was hearing the 2nd bail plea filed by one Kuldip Kumar who has been booked under Sections 344, 364, 307 IPC and Sections 325, 326, 201 IPC.

Case background

As per the FIR registered in the instant matter, one Sandeep Kumar (complainant) lodged an FIR alleging that he was in touch with Sonia Baba, who was a transgender and in November 2018, he was called by the accused persons and when he reached to meet them, two other persons, who were also transgenders, were present there.

Allegedly, they took him in a vehicle to some undisclosed place, and later on (the petitioner drove the vehicle), he became unconscious and when he gained consciousness, he found that he is lying near a railway crossing.

Further, his family members called the police and took him to the hospital, where the complainant came to know that his penis and testicles were chopped off from his body by Sonia Baba and other companions.

Submissions put forth

It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 04 months, and 02 days and he was not named in the FIR, and the main accused Sonia Baba had already died. It was also submitted that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR and the petitioner had circulated some video that he has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR.

On the other hand, the State counsel argued that after the arrest of the main accused Sonia Baba, on the disclosure statement, the petitioner was nominated as a person, who was accompanying Sonia Baba and has committed the offense.

It was further submitted that as per the investigation, the petitioner was the driver of the car, in which the victim was kidnapped and was later on, his private parts were chopped off.

Relying upon the MLR of the victim, which supports the case of the complainant, it was argued that a perusal of the opinion given by the Board of Doctors shows that victim Sandeep Kumar had injuries due to amputation of penis and excision of testes with stitches present with scrotal hematoma with Folley's cather in situ.

Case title - Kuldip Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Punjab

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order