Delhi High Court – Orders
Amit Rajput vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025
AMIT RAJPUT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, Mr. Rahul Kumar,
Mr. Shubham Singh, Mr Prakhar
Sharma, Dr. S.K. Yadav, Advocates
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
along with SI Ambika and SI
Lalchand, PS SB Dairy
Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu (DHCLSC) for
R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 13.08.2025
1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 197320 seeks regular bail in FIR No. 905/2024 dated
20th December, 2024, registered under Sections 354, 354A, 354C, 376 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Shahbhad Dairy. A chargesheet
was also filed in the said FIR against the Applicant under Sections 354,
354A, 354C, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. The Applicant’s earlier bail application
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 1 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
before the concerned Court was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21st
January, 2025. Subsequently, after completion of investigation and filing of
chargesheet, the Applicant moved another application for bail before the
Trial Court, which was dismissed by order dated 21st April, 2025 passed by
ASJ, Special FTC (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The subject FIR was registered on a complaint lodged by Respondent
No. 2 (the Complainant) alleging that the Applicant had sexually exploited
her on the false pretext of marriage and, in the course of such exploitation,
had taken objectionable photographs and videos to threaten and coerce her.
The case of prosecution, emerging from the FIR and the chargesheet is
summarised as follows:
2.1. The Complainant came in contact with the Applicant through social
media. He later called her to Sector 11, Green Park Belt, and made her have
some coffee and cold drink, and thereafter made physical advances towards
her. When she resisted, the accused professed his love and expressed a
desire to marry her.
2.2. The parties stayed in contact through messages and calls. On 22nd
March, 2023, her birthday, the Complainant claims she was invited by the
Applicant to an OYO hotel in Rohini, where, after having snacks she
became semi-conscious, and the Applicant sexually assaulted her. It is
alleged that he took objectionable photographs and videos during this
incident. He also threatened her not to disclose anything about the incident
or else he would make those photographs and videos public and reiterated
his intention to marry her. The Complainant refused to meet him again but
he threatened her that he would make her photographs and videos public.
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 2 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
2.3. Thereafter, under threat and coercion, the Complainant met the
Applicant on some occasions at the same hotel and later at other locations,
during which he is alleged to again have taken photographs and videos of
her, the existence of which the Complainant learnt only subsequently.
2.4 In December, 2023, when the Complainant’s family began searching
for a marriage alliance for her, she informed the Applicant, who kept
delaying marriage on various pretexts. Thereafter, while visiting
Mukundpur, she saw the Applicant with his wife and two children. Upon
confronting him about his marital status, the Applicant admitted he was
married and stated he would “keep her too” but could not marry her.
2.5 The Complainant thereafter broke off contact with the Applicant and
told him not to call or meet her again. On 3rd March, 2024, the Complainant
married “V” and got involved in her married life.
2.6 However, in April-May 2024, the Applicant again contacted the
Complainant and persuaded her to meet him ‘one last time’. Trusting his
assurance, she agreed, whereupon he showed her the earlier objectionable
photographs and videos on his phone and threatened to send them to her
husband unless she accompanied him to the same hotel.
2.7 The Complainant alleges that she was then forcibly taken to the hotel,
sexually assaulted, and then the Applicant again made objectionable images
and videos of her. She claims that after her refusal to continue contact, the
Applicant sent some of these materials to her husband.
2.8 The Complainant was medically examined at MV Hospital, Pooth
Khurd, and the findings were recorded in MLC No. 7336/24. The doctor
noted an alleged history of sexual assault approximately 1.5 years earlier, as
narrated by the Complainant, and recorded that her b/b and UPT tests were
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 3 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
negative. Thereafter, FIR No. 905/2024 was registered at P.S. Shahbad
Dairy.
2.9 Her statement under Section 183 BNSS was thereafter recorded, in
which she reiterated the allegations made in her complaint. The
Investigating Officer visited the alleged place of incident [OYO Hotel,
Relax Inn] and, at the Complainant’s instance, prepared a site plan. The IO
also sought the original hotel records for the year 2023-24 from the person
present at the reception; however, owing to the lapse of time, the CCTV
footage was no longer available.
2.10 On 26th December, 2024, a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was
served upon the Applicant, pursuant to which he was brought to the police
station for questioning. According to the prosecution, he confessed to the
crimes, following which he was arrested and his family was informed. On
27th December, 2024, he was produced before the JMFC, Rohini, who
granted one day’s police custody remand.
2.11 During police custody, the Applicant allegedly guided them to OYO
Hotel, Relax Inn, as well as another hotel, Golden Key (now closed), as
locations connected with the alleged incidents. However, no records relevant
to the occurrences were found in the hotel registers. The Applicant was also
medically examined, and the potency test did not reveal any incapacity for
sexual activity.
2.12 Notices under Section 94 BNSS were issued to the Applicant’s father
and to the Complainant for production of their respective mobile phones.
The Applicant’s father produced an iPhone 14, which, upon inspection,
contained no photographs of the Complainant. The same was seized. The
Complainant also produced her phone, which likewise contained no such
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 4 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
material and was seized. The Applicant’s phone has been sent for forensic
examination, and the report is awaited.
2.13 The Complainant’s husband joined the investigation on 3rd January,
2025, and produced his mobile phone, which was found to contain certain
photographs and videos depicting the Complainant and the Applicant in
close physical proximity. The device was seized for further examination.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds in support of
the Application:
3.1. The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the subject FIR. The
allegations in the present FIR pertain to an alleged sexual relationship
between the Applicant and the Complainant. However, as per the
Complainant’s own statement, she and the Applicant allegedly came into
contact in January 2023, continued to meet on multiple occasions, and
remained in regular contact over the phone. The nature and duration of such
alleged interactions, if assumed to be correct, are inconsistent with the
Prosecution’s case of forcible sexual assault.
3.2. No objectionable or obscene photographs or videos of the
Complainant have been recovered from the Applicant’s mobile phone,
which was duly seized during the investigation. In the absence of such
material, the allegation that the Applicant blackmailed the Complainant by
threatening to circulate such content is rendered baseless.
3.3. The alleged locations of the incidents, including the hotels referred to
in the FIR, could not be corroborated during investigation. The records of
the concerned hotels for the relevant period do not reflect any booking or
entry showing the presence of the Applicant with the Complainant. ThisBAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 5 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
absence of corroborative evidence substantially weakens the Prosecution’s
case.
3.4. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR.
The first alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 22 nd March, 2023, yet
the FIR was registered on 20th December, 2024. The FIR was filed only after
the Complainant’s marriage, which took place on 3rd March, 2024. It is
pertinent that the allegations surfaced in December 2024, more than nine
months after the marriage, and nearly twenty-one months after the first
alleged incident. The timing of the complaint raises serious doubts as to the
motive behind its filing, particularly when viewed against the background of
her matrimonial circumstances.
3.5. The present complaint is driven by personal motives rather than any
genuine incident of sexual assault. The material on record suggests that the
Complainant’s husband became aware of certain ‘friendly photographs’ of
the Complainant and the Applicant, whereupon the Applicant has been made
a scapegoat in order to deflect attention from the Complainant’s own
matrimonial issues and salvage her reputation. This is evident from the fact
that divorce proceedings have been initiated by the husband wherein he
claims to have found some photographs of the Complainant and the
Applicant from her phone. Moreover, in her statement under Section 183
BNSS, the Complainant herself states that her husband had been harassing
her and using her photographs to tarnish her reputation. The sequence of
events thus suggests that the allegations were concocted only after
matrimonial discord arose.
3.6. There are inconsistencies in the Complainant’s version regarding the
alleged transmission of photographs and videos. In the complaint, she has
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 6 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
alleged that the Applicant sent such material to her husband. However, in
her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has stated that her husband
obtained those photographs from her own phone. It is submitted that this
material contradiction further undermines the credibility of the allegations.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, and Ms.
Inderjeet Sidhu, counsel for the Complainant, strongly oppose the grant of
bail on the following grounds:
4.1. The Applicant is involved in a grave and heinous offence punishable
under Section 376 IPC, apart from other serious charges.
4.2. Photographs, of the Applicant and the Complainant, though not
obscene, have been recovered from the mobile phone of the Complainant’s
husband, which were allegedly sent to him by the Applicant. This
corroborates the Complainant’s version that the Applicant had been
blackmailing the Complainant through the use of such images.
4.3. The forensic analysis of the Applicant’s mobile phone is still pending
and is expected to be a crucial piece of evidence, potentially including the
recovery of the alleged obscene photographs. It is contended that the
application for bail should be considered only after the Forensic Science
Laboratory report is received.
4.4. The statement of the Complainant has been deferred pending receipt
of the FSL report. It is urged that releasing the Applicant on bail at this stage
would jeopardise the integrity of the trial, as there exists a serious
apprehension that he may influence or intimidate the Complainant and other
witnesses.
ANALYSIS
5. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 7 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
material placed on record. In the absence of any scientific evidence at this
stage, the prosecution case rests substantially on the statement of the
Complainant. It is well-settled that in cases of sexual offences the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix, if found credible and trustworthy, may be
sufficient to sustain a conviction. However, such an assessment is a matter
for trial. At this stage, the Court is confined to a prima facie evaluation of
the available material. A reading of the Complainant’s statement under
Section 183 BNSS reveals that she has admitted to having been in a
relationship with the Applicant since January 2023.
6. It is further pertinent to note that the first alleged incident, as per the
prosecution, occurred on 22nd March, 2023, whereas the FIR was registered
only on 20th December, 2024, nearly twenty-one months later, and more
than nine months after the Complainant’s marriage on 3rd March, 2024. The
record further indicates that the Complainant and the Applicant continued to
remain in contact for a considerable period following the alleged incident.
No cogent explanation has been offered for this inordinate delay in lodging
the FIR. While the law recognises that delay in reporting sexual offences
may be explained by factors such as trauma, fear, or societal pressure, in the
facts of the present case, the prolonged and unexplained delay, coupled with
the continued association between the parties, prima facie reduces the
evidentiary weight of the allegations at the stage of considering bail.
7. Further, the Complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, when
read in conjunction with the prolonged delay in lodging the FIR, prima facie
suggests that the nature of the association, if any, bore elements of a
consensual relationship. This inference arises particularly from the
allegation of repeated meetings over an extended period, rather than a single,
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 8 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
isolated incident of coercion.
8. The prosecution’s case refers to certain alleged incidents having taken
place at certain OYO hotels. However, the investigation has not yielded any
hotel records or other contemporaneous material capable of corroborating
these allegations.
9. As regards the allegations involving objectionable photographs of the
Complainant, concededly, the investigation so far has not revealed any
obscene photographs or videos of the Complainant, from the Applicant’s
mobile phone, which was duly seized. The only recovery allegedly made,
has been from the mobile phone of the Complainant’s husband, and those
photographs, by the prosecution’s own showing, are not obscene but merely
depict the Complainant and the Applicant in close physical proximity. In the
absence of any such objectionable material at this stage, the allegation of
blackmail through obscene photographs is, at least prima facie, rendered
doubtful.
10. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for the Applicant, there exists
a material inconsistency in the Complainant’s account regarding the
transmission of the alleged photographs. In the initial complaint, she alleged
that the Applicant had sent them to her husband, whereas in her statement
under Section 183 BNSS, she stated that her husband had obtained them
from her own phone. Such inconsistency, at this stage, prima facie casts a
doubt on the veracity of the allegation.
11. Counsel for the Applicant has also drawn attention to the fact that the
Complainant’s husband has instituted divorce proceedings against her, in
which allegations have been made regarding her association with another
person. A certified copy of the divorce petition (HMA No. 104/2025) has
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 9 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
been placed on record. While the merits of those proceedings are not for this
Court to examine at this stage, a perusal of the petition indicates the
existence of matrimonial discord between the Complainant and her husband,
which may have some bearing on the circumstances in which the present
FIR was lodged. It is further pointed out that certain photographs of the
Complainant and the Applicant, allegedly recovered from the Complainant’s
own phone, have been annexed to the divorce petition by her husband.
These photographs do not appear to be obscene and, prima facie, do not lend
support to the allegations made by the Complainant in the present case.
12. Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, emphasise that the FSL
examination of the Applicant’s mobile phone is pending and the request for
bail may be considered after such examination is concluded and a report is
received. In the opinion of the Court, the pendency of such examination, by
itself, cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the Applicant,
particularly when the trial is underway and the issue before this Court is
confined to the question of grant of bail.
13. It is noted that, as per the latest nominal roll dated 9th July, 2025, the
Applicant has undergone 5 Months, 28 Days in custody as on 24th June,
2025 and his conduct in jail is satisfactory. Further, there are no criminal
antecedents or pending cases against the Applicant.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, and without commenting on the
merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Applicant has made
out a case for grant of bail. The material on record, the prolonged and
unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, absence of corroborative evidence
at this stage, inconsistencies in the Complainant’s version, and the nature of
the association between the parties as reflected in the statements,
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 10 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
cumulatively weigh in favour of granting bail.
15. The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 50,000/- with two sureties of
the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on
the following conditions:
a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;
b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall not contact the victim or any of her family
members;
d. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
e. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;
f. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
g. 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.
h. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
i. The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first, second andBAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 11 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45
fourth Friday of every month;
16. 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.
17. 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.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 13, 2025/MK
BAIL APPLN. 1670/2025 Page 12 of 12
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 15/08/2025 at 23:16:45