Explainer: Parties to appear before court on July 30 for hearing objections to closure report in gangrape case against Badoli

A Sessions Court in Solan reopened the gangrape case against Haryana BJP president Mohan Lal Badoli and a singer, Rocky Mittal, on July 15. It directed the Magistrate Court to allow the woman alleging gangrape to file her objections to the closure report filed in the case by the Himachal Pradesh Police.

What is the case against Badoli and Mittal?

A woman had got an FIR registered on December 13, 2024, at the Kasauli police station in Himachal Pradesh against Badoli and Mittal for gangrape and criminal intimidation. She had alleged that approximately one and a half years ago, on July 3, 2023, she and her women friends had stayed at Hotel Rose Common, Kasauli, and met Badoli and Mittal. Mittal had allegedly promised her a role in his album, while Badoli had told her that he would get her a government job. As per allegations, they forced the complainant and her friend to consume alcohol. Then they allegedly raped her one by one. It was further alleged that as she was crying, Mittal threw them out of the room.

Why did the Himachal Pradesh Police file the closure report?

The closure report, filed in the Kasauli court on February 18, by the Himachal Pradesh Police noted that, according to the complainant, her friend had witnessed the incident, but she didn’t support the allegations in her statement recorded before a Magistrate. There was a significant 17-month delay in reporting the incident to the police, which made her case less credible. Also, there was no medical evidence to support allegations of rape. Her boss, who had accompanied her to Kasauli, had not endorsed the allegations, the report had added.

Why did the ACJM, Kasauli, accept the closure report?

After receipt of the closure report on February 18, the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Kasauli, Prashant Singh Negi, directed the woman to appear on March 6. However, Mittal got an extortion case registered against the woman and her two accomplices on February 6 at the Sector 5 police station in Panchkula. He alleged that the three accused had several times advanced telephonic threats to him between September 1, 2024, and September 18, 2024, stating that he and Badoli would be falsely implicated in honey trap cases if their demands were not met. Since the extortion case was registered, the woman was on the run. She didn’t appear before the Kasauli court on March 6. ACJM Kasauli Prashant Singh Negi observed that the “summons issued to the victim on her address mentioned in the complaint filed before the police received back unserved with a report that her house was found locked.” The ACJM issued the summons to the woman for March 12. Till lunch, she didn’t appear in the court. The summons issued to her was returned as unserved. After lunch, the ACJM accepted the closure report in the gangrape case. The same day (March 12), the woman’s anticipatory bail was fixed in a Panchkula court, and she was granted bail in the extortion case.

What did the woman say after getting the bail?

On April 12, the woman held a press conference in Chandigarh. She said she couldn’t appear in Kasauli court to counter the Himachal Pradesh Police’s closure report, as the Haryana Police were looking for her in the extortion case filed against her by Mittal. Meanwhile, she filed a criminal revision petition before the Solan court against the ACJM Kasauli’s acceptance of the closure report.

What did the Sessions Court say in the criminal revision petition?

The court of Sessions Judge Dr Arvind Malhotra observed that the woman was not served with summons through affixation as ordered by the ACJM, Kasauli, on March 6, and adequate efforts were not made by the Kasauli court to locate her address through the police. It couldn’t be held that the petitioner was not seriously pursuing her case, the Sessions Judge added. “…precise grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been afforded the opportunity to file objections and be heard in the matter. This court finds that it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner is allowed to file objections in the cancellation report and deserves to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before accepting or passing any order of the same by Ld ACJM, Kasauli,” said the order dated July 15 of the Sessions Court. It added, “Consequently, the impugned order dated March 12, 2025 (passed by ACJM Kasauli), does not stand judicial scrutiny and is found illegal. Accordingly, the same is set aside.” The Sessions Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on July 30.

Haryana Tribune