Delhi High Court – Orders
Mukesh Through Pairokar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 8 July, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1822/2025
MUKESH THROUGH PAIROKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rishabh Duggal and Ms. Pragati
Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for
State with Ms. Puja Mann, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 08.07.2025
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of
regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 54/2019, registered at
Police Station RK Puram, for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 365/376D/377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC‘) and
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereafter ‘POCSO Act‘).
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the above-mentioned
case had been registered on the statement of the victim, Ms. “S”, a girl aged
14 years. It had been alleged that on 15.12.2019, at around 5:10 PM, the
victim had gone to a public toilet along with her younger sister. While she
had been waiting outside the toilet, the accused persons had arrived there,
and had kidnapped her by forcibly making her sit in a Swift Dzire car, which
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 22:00:12
had been driven by the present applicant/ accused. It had been further
alleged that the applicant had tied her hands and had forcibly established
physical relations with her at a secluded place at Palam. Thereafter, both had
gone to R.K. Puram, had dropped the victim near Sangam Cinema, from
where she had managed to return home, and narrated the incident to her
aunt. Thereafter, the victim, accompanied by her family members, had
approached the R.K. Puram Police Station, where her statement had been
recorded. She had subsequently undergone medical examination at the
hospital and her Medico-Legal certificate (MLC) had been prepared.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused argues that the
applicant is entitled to regular bail primarily on the ground of delay in the
conclusion of trial, which has been prolonged due to the prosecution’s laxity
in conducting proceedings. It is further argued that there exists grave doubt
regarding the identity of the applicant, as the prosecutrix is alleged to have
been tutored and no Test Identification Parade was conducted during
investigation, thereby seriously prejudicing the defence. Moreover, it is
contended that there is no concrete evidence linking the applicant to the
commission of the alleged offence in the seized Swift car, and the DNA and
forensic material relied upon by the prosecution lacks evidentiary value due
to an unverified chain of custody. Lastly, it is urged that the applicant is
similarly situated as co-accused Ranjeet, who has already been granted bail.
It is thus prayed that the present applicant be released on bail.
4. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the
medical and forensic evidence on record clearly implicates the applicant in
the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the victim had been
medically examined without undue delay after the registration of the FIR,
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 22:00:12
and her MLC records that she had not passed urine, stool, or taken a bath
after the incident, thereby preserving critical forensic evidence. The MLC
further reveals that the victim had sustained a tear in her vaginal area,
abrasions on the back of her shoulder, and swelling and abrasions on her
hands, consistent with the allegations of sexual assault. It is further
submitted that the DNA and semen samples recovered from the victim’s
clothes and private parts matched the profile of the present applicant. In
view of the gravity of the allegations and the strong prima facie evidence
available on record, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled to the
grant of bail.
5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the
applicant and learned APP for the State, and has perused the material on
record.
6. The allegations against the present applicant, in brief, are that he,
along with a co-accused, had abducted the minor victim while she was
waiting outside a public toilet, and had taken her in a Swift car to a secluded
location where he forcibly established physical relations with her after tying
her hands. It is further alleged that the applicant thereafter dropped the
victim near Sangam Cinema, from where she returned home and narrated
the incident to her family.
7. Upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that there is
specific and substantive evidence against the present applicant/accused
Mukesh, linking him to the commission of the alleged offence. It is noted
that the prosecutrix, a minor girl aged about 14 years, has made a detailed
statement under Section 164 CrPC, narrating the incident in a consistent and
coherent manner. As per the prosecution, the applicant had forcibly taken
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 22:00:12
the victim in a car to a secluded location where he had allegedly committed
rape after tying her hands.
8. The forensic evidence further prima facie strengthens the
prosecution’s case. The MLC of the victim specifically records that she had
not taken a bath, nor passed urine or stool, before her medical examination.
The forensic analysis has confirmed the presence of DNA and semen of the
applicant on the clothes and private parts of the prosecutrix. This Court also
notes that medical evidence records a tear in the vaginal region, abrasions
over the back of the shoulder, and swelling and abrasions on the hands of the
victim which corroborates her statement that her hands had been tied before
committing sexual assault.
9. At this stage, the medical and scientific evidence points to the prima
facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence, and this
Court is satisfied that there is sufficient material on record to warrant denial
of bail.
10. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that
the co-accused Ranjeet has already been granted bail and the applicant is
similarly situated, this Court is of the view that the argument of parity is
misplaced. The role attributed to the co-accused is materially distinct from
that of the present applicant. The prosecution has not recovered any
incriminating forensic material linking the co-accused to the commission of
the offence. In contrast, the semen and DNA recovered from the victim
matches that of the present applicant, Mukesh. Thus, the present applicant
cannot claim parity in circumstances where the evidentiary linkage against
him is direct and substantial.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion and considering the gravity of the
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 22:00:12
offence, the age of the victim, and the strong prima facie evidence available
on record, this Court finds no ground to grant regular bail to the
applicant/accused at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.
13. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereunder shall
tantamount to an expression on the merits of the case.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JULY 08, 2025/vc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 22:00:12
[ad_1]
Source link