Delhi High Court – Orders
Sonu Meena vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 926/2025
SONU MEENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Gill, Mr. Vipin
Rana, Mr. Muzammil Hasan, Ms.
Ritu, Mr. Vinay Panwar, Mr. Shivam
Gill and Mr. Satyam Gill, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Ritu Yadav and SI Shubhansu, PS:
Kalyanpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.07.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks grant of pre-arrest bail in proceedings arising from
FIR No. 557/2024 dated 14th October, 2024 registered under Sections
64(1)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at P.S. Kalyanpuri. The
Petitioner was initially granted interim bail by the Trial Court on 17th
January, 2025 and the same was extended on various occasions. However,
subsequently, the Trial Court, after considering the facts of the case and the
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C”
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
gravity of allegations against the Applicant, dismissed the bail application
by order dated 24th February, 2025.
2. A copy of the status report has been handed over across the Board,
and is taken on record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
3.1. The present FIR has been lodged on a complaint made by Ms. “P”
wherein she alleged that on 6th August, 2024, her aunt’s son, Sonu Meena
(the Applicant), forcibly established physical relations with her at her
matrimonial house when she was alone, using a knife to threaten her. He
further threatened to have her husband and younger brother killed if she
revealed the incident to anyone.
3.2. During the course of investigation, the victim’s medical examination
was conducted wherein the doctor opined: “A/H/O sexual assault by Sonu
(24y/m) her aunt’s son on 6th August, 2024, at 9-10 am at XYZ. He made
forceful sexual intercourse without her consent and clicked her photo and
video. No history of unnatural intercourse. No history of physical violence.
No history of loss of consciousness. No history of bleeding through
ear/nose/mouth or any other. He was not under influence of alcohol
intoxication at the time of incident. No history of similar incidence in past.”
3.3. Subsequently, the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of
the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein she reiterated and corroborated the
allegations made in the FIR. A site plan of the place of occurrence was also
prepared at her instance.
3.4. An analysis of the CDRs of the Applicant’s mobile phone established
that he was present in the vicinity of Kalyanpuri on the date of the alleged
incident.
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
3.5. The Applicant deliberately evaded arrest despite repeated attempts by
the authorities. Consequently, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against
him on 24th October, 2024, but these could not be executed. Thereafter,
proceedings under Section 84 of BNSS were initiated and a proclamation
was issued on 5th November, 2024.
3.6. By order dated 17th January, 2025 passed by the ASJ (FTSC) (RC),
East, Karkardooma Courts, the Applicant was granted interim protection on
his application seeking anticipatory bail.
3.7. During this interim period, the Applicant appeared before the
Investigating Officer on 20th January, 2025 and denied all allegations
levelled against him. He stated that he frequently visits Delhi for coaching
classes and denied ever visiting the victim’s matrimonial house. He also
disclosed that there was an ongoing dispute between his mother and the
victim’s father concerning ancestral property, relying on a document
purportedly related to this dispute. A certified copy of the document was
obtained from the relevant authorities, and several villagers were examined,
however, no evidence of such a property dispute was found during the
investigation.
3.8. In her supplementary statement, the victim stated that although the
knife allegedly used by the Applicant was taken from her house, she was
unable to produce the weapon before the police.
3.9. Subsequently, on 15th February, 2025, a mobile phone was produced
before the police, which was found to contain explicit videos of the victim,
apparently made at the behest of the Applicant. The phone was seized
through a seizure memo and sent to the FSL for examination. Upon
interrogation about the video recordings found on his phone, which were
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
alleged to have been made by him involving the victim, the Applicant
denied having made any video calls to the victim.
4. Counsel for the Applicant urges that the Applicant has been falsely
implicated and submits the following:
4.1. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of enmity between the victim
and her husband and the Applicant.
4.2. The video recordings relied upon by the prosecution do not
substantiate the allegations contained in the FIR.
4.3. The Applicant has joined investigation and extended full co-
operation. Reliance is placed on the notice of appearance dated 20th January,
2025 which depicts that the Applicant has joined investigation.
4.4. There is an inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR, as the
alleged incident occurred on 6th August, 2024, but the FIR was registered
only on 14th October, 2024.
4.5. The physical relationship, if any, between the Applicant and the
victim was consensual. This is supported by the statement of the victim’s
husband recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that upon
accessing the victim’s Instagram account on a mobile phone he had
previously given her, he discovered photographs sent by the Applicant
depicting the two of them together. The husband thereafter showed these
photographs to the victim’s father, a fact which is corroborated in the latter’s
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
4.6. The Applicant is aged 23 years and is studying for government jobs
and has deep roots in society. He has no prior criminal antecedents and is
willing to abide by the conditions of this Court, if bail were to be granted.
5. The Court has considered the facts and the submissions advanced. By
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
order dated 4th March, 2024, this Court had granted interim protection to the
Applicant with a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer. In
compliance with this direction, it is confirmed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP
for the State, that the Applicant has duly appeared before the Investigating
Officer. It is further submitted that the investigation is now nearing
completion and the chargesheet is likely to be filed shortly.
6. On the aspect of delay in lodging of FIR, it is not in dispute that the
alleged incident took place on 6th August, 2024, but the FIR came to be
registered more than two months later, on 14th October, 2024. While delay in
lodging a complaint in cases involving sexual offences is not, by itself,
conclusive or fatal, it is nonetheless a relevant factor that must be examined
in the overall factual context. In the present case, no cogent or satisfactory
explanation for the delay has been provided by the prosecution. The
justification, if any, for such delay would be a matter for trial, however, at
this stage, it, prima facie, casts a doubt on the case of the prosecution.
7. As regards the issue of consent, the material placed on record, prima
facie indicates the existence of a prior association between the Applicant and
the victim. While the question of whether the physical relationship, if any,
was consensual throughout will be determined at trial, the record does not
disclose circumstances necessitating custodial interrogation of the Applicant
at this stage.
8. Taking into account that the Applicant has joined and co-operated
with the investigation, has no past criminal antecedents, and there is no
material indicating that he poses a flight risk or is likely to tamper with
evidence or influence witnesses, this Court is of the view that the
Applicant’s custodial interrogation is not warranted at this juncture.
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
9. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is disposed of with a
direction that in the event the Applicant is arrested, he shall be released on
bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of INR 25,000/- with one surety of
the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the
following conditions:
a. The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and
when directed by the IO;
b. The Applicant shall not leave the boundaries of the country without
informing the IO/ SHO concerned;
c. The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with the
evidence in any manner;
d. The Applicant shall not contact the victim or any of her family
members;
e. The Applicant shall not reside within 3 km radius of the residence of
the victim and shall also furnish proof of his residence to the concerned IO.
The Applicant shall also not move in the vicinity of the victim in any
manner;
f. The Applicant shall give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO
and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
10. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
11. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
12. The application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 7, 2025/d.negi
BAIL APPLN. 926/2025 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2025 at 21:38:35
[ad_1]
Source link