The Delhi High Court has dismissed anticipatory bail for a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, emphasizing that friendship or acquaintance does not excuse violence. The judgment highlights victim protection and corroborated evidence under the POCSO Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a man accused of serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The case has drawn attention due to the grave nature of the allegations and the involvement of a minor victim.
ALSO READ: Minors Can Reclaim Property Without Filing Lawsuit on Attaining Majority: Supreme Court
Background of the Case
The FIR (No. 302/2025) was registered at Sangam Vihar Police Station based on the complaint of a 17-year-old girl. According to the complaint, the victim had known the accused for several years, as he resided in her neighbourhood.
On June 26, 2025, the minor reportedly went to meet the accused near Hamdard, after which he allegedly took her to a friend’s house in Govindpuri. The victim claimed that the accused assaulted and repeatedly sexually abused her before releasing her around 10:00 p.m. Out of fear, she initially refrained from reporting the incident, as the accused had allegedly threatened her life.
The victim only disclosed the incident to her mother on July 5, 2025, following a family altercation involving the accused’s mother. A medical examination was conducted at AIIMS, and her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
ALSO READ: Hrithik Roshan vs AI Deepfakes: Delhi High Court Orders to Protect Personality Rights
Charges and Legal Proceedings
The accused was charged under multiple provisions of the BNS:
- Section 64(2) – Rape
- Section 115(2) – Voluntarily causing hurt
- Section 127(2) – Wrongful confinement
- Section 351 – Criminal intimidation
He was also charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault.
The accused sought anticipatory bail, citing a delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR and asserting that the complaint stemmed from a familial dispute. His legal team also claimed that he had a clean record and highlighted discrepancies regarding the exact date of the alleged incident.
ALSO READ: Banking Laws (Amendment) Act 2025: New Nomination Rules from November 1
Court’s Analysis
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the arguments for anticipatory bail, emphasizing several key points:
- Seriousness of Allegations:
The Court highlighted the grave nature of the offences and the potential threat the accused posed to the victim. - Prima Facie Corroboration:
The victim’s statement, recorded under Section 183 BNSS, detailed the events of June 26, 2025, including the physical assault, confinement, and repeated sexual abuse. The Court noted that medical evidence corroborated the allegations, revealing bruising and injuries consistent with the victim’s account. - Delay in Reporting:
The Court observed that the minor’s delay in reporting the incident was understandable given the trauma and fear she experienced. - Consent Argument Rejected:
The Court dismissed claims of a consensual relationship, clarifying that friendship does not justify sexual assault or violence. - Non-Cooperation of Accused:
The Court took note that the accused had failed to join the investigation despite multiple opportunities, further weakening his case for bail.
ALSO READ: Lokpal in India: India’s Anti-Corruption Mechanism Explained Amid BMW Tender Controversy
In view of the above, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, stating:
“In view of the foregoing circumstances, coupled with the serious nature of allegations levelled in the present case, prima facie corroborated by the material on record, this Court finds that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.”
The Court clarified that its decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Hitesh Thakur and Shubham Tyagi
Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State
Case Title:
SUMIT SINGH versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
BAIL APPLN. 4008/2025
READ ORDER
