Noida-Delhi bus gang-rape case: Vehicle had challans worth ₹63,000 pending over permit, safety and speed violations

The sleeper bus in which a 17-year-old girl was allegedly gang-raped by its driver and conductor had 12 pending challans amounting to ₹63,000 when the crime took place, with the violations including driving without a permit or in breach of permit conditions and repeated violations of speed limits.The bus in question, bearing registration number ‘UP 83 ET 3789’, continued to operate despite the outstanding challans, according to details of the challans accessed by The Hindu. A ₹26,000 challan was issued under Sections 192A and 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a vehicle without a permit or allowing it to be driven in contravention of permit conditions relating to its route, area or purpose and Section 190(2) for violations relating to retro-reflective tape and speed-limit devices in commercial vehicles.Nine of the 12 challans, each amounting to ₹4,000, were for violations of prescribed speed limits. Two others, each worth ₹500, related to parking violations and other traffic-rule violations by the driver.The challans were issued between May 11 and July 23, 2026, with nine issued in July alone, from July 1 to July 23, 12 days before the incident. Despite the repeated violations and unpaid penalties, the bus continued to ply.The vehicle also had curtains around its sleeper berths, preventing people outside from seeing what was happening inside. The use of such partitions in sleeper buses has already come under scrutiny following the incident, with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) pointing to violations of guidelines issued by the Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT). The CCTV camera installed inside the bus was also found to be non-functional at the time of the incident.The case has also raised questions over the coordination between the police forces of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, with the Gautam Buddh Nagar Police saying it was not informed that the crime had taken place within its jurisdiction.A day after details of the gang rape emerged, Greater Noida Deputy Commissioner of Police Ravi Shankar Nim told The Hindu that the Delhi Police had not contacted the Gautam Buddh Nagar Police about the case.“The Delhi Police did not contact us at all. They are the ones who registered the case, arrested the accused and lodged them in jail. Neither did the complainant come to us nor did the Delhi Police reach out to us, so we could not do anything,” Mr. Nim said.He said the Delhi Police could have transferred the case to the Uttar Pradesh Police after registering a zero FIR if the incident fell within the latter’s jurisdiction.Delhi Police, however, said the Kashmere Gate police station had acted immediately after the girl approached it, keeping jurisdictional considerations aside in view of the seriousness of the case.Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) Niharika Bhatt said that the police immediately began investigating after the girl reached the station. “Looking at the seriousness of the issue and as per the new laws, the Kashmere Gate police station got the girl medically examined and registered a case, keeping aside the jurisdictional issues. With the help of CCTV footage and the victim, the bus was identified and subsequently the accused were arrested,” she said.Criticism over police response, transport regulationsThe episode has triggered criticism over police response, enforcement of transport regulations and the safety of women and children on public transport.CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke questioned how the bus could travel several kilometres without being intercepted despite the alleged crime taking place inside it. “The bus kept going for 47 kilometres but no one could save the girl. No police tried to stop it or saw it. What is the Delhi Police doing? During the protest at Jantar Mantar, thousands of police and RAF personnel were deployed. Why can’t the same level of deployment be used for women’s safety?” he said.“This is the failure of the police and the Home Minister. In 2026, why is a girl still not feeling safe in Delhi?” he said, adding that women should be able to travel without fear.Former IPS officer Kiran Bedi said the transport sector needed greater scrutiny, particularly when it came to drivers and conductors employed in vehicles carrying women and children.“We are seeing a resurgence of reported cases involving the rape of girls, whether they are 16-year-olds or three-year-olds attending school,” she said. Ms. Bedi called for mandatory police verification before drivers and conductors were hired and said enforcement agencies should act when buses were found violating safety norms.“If a bus is spotted on CCTV, perhaps with its curtains drawn, it should be stopped immediately,” she said, stressing that punishment and the fear of consequences were equally important.“Unless their source of income is suspended and the school licence is cancelled, that necessary fear will not be instilled. Our girls will keep becoming victims of such crimes,” she said, calling for verification drives and stricter enforcement.Meanwhile, RJD MP Sudhakar Singh has sent a letter petition to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking suo motu cognisance of the incident involving the minor girl on the moving bus, as well as the alleged sexual assault of a three-year-old child at a daycare school.The MP’s lawyer, Satyam Singh Rajput, said the petition sought judicial intervention and status reports from the Delhi and Uttar Pradesh governments.“This is a suo motu letter petition filed on behalf of RJD MP Sudhakar Singh in connection with the gang-rape case involving a girl on the highway from Greater Noida to Delhi. We have urged the court to take suo motu cognisance of the matter and sought status reports from the Delhi and Uttar Pradesh governments,” Mr. Rajput said.Meanwhile, the wife of arrested bus driver Kuldeep claimed that her husband had been falsely implicated, saying he had been driving for 10-15 years and had never faced any trouble. She said the family had two children and that Kuldeep regularly called home while away for work, adding that “if he was wrong, why would he do that or the owner have kept him on?”