[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Mukesh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025
MUKESH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Vaibhu
Dubey and Ms. Anshla Varma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Sharanya S., PS: Jamia Nagar.
Insp. Narpal Singh Yadav, SHO
Jamia Nagar.
Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate for the
Prosecutrix.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 30.07.2025
1. This is the second regular bail application filed under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) in the proceedings emanating
from case FIR No. 683/2016 dated 8th July, 2016, registered under Section
363 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed, adding offences under Sections 376
and 174A of IPC, along with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 1 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
Sexual Offences Act, 20124.
Factual Matrix
2. The Applicant’s previous bail application was rejected by this Court
on 19th March 2024 [in BAIL APPLN. 3771/2023], considering the gravity
of the allegations. Counsel for the Applicant contends that circumstances
have undergone a material change since the rejection of the previous
application. He submits that the Applicant has undergone a significant
period of incarceration post the previous order and that the statements of
both the Prosecutrix and her father have since been recorded during trial.
Furthermore, it is highlighted that co-accused Dinesh Chand, who faces
allegations of comparable grievousness, was granted anticipatory bail by this
Court on 19th September, 2024 in BAIL APPLN. 1981/2024.
3. This case has had a chequered procedural history, marked by multiple
statements of the Prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC,
and directions by the Trial Court for further investigation. In view of this
backdrop, the Court has heard the submissions of counsel for the parties as
well as Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, counsel for the Prosecutrix, at considerable
length.
4. Upon registration of the FIR, the Prosecutrix initially gave a statement
under Section 161 of CrPC on 25th April, 2017, wherein she stated that she
was a student of Class 10 and residing with her parents. She claimed to have
developed a relationship with the Applicant, Mukesh, then approximately 32
years old, who was a neighbour and a frequent visitor to her home.
According to her, the two fell in love and intended to marry, but her parents
3
“IPC”
4
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 2 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
disapproved of the alliance. On 7th July, 2016 (on occasion of Eid), she went
to the Applicant’s house in Achalpur, U.P., without informing anyone in her
family. Then, the Applicant, after a quarrel with his first wife, took her to
Mathura, where they got married in a temple. Thereafter, she was kept in a
rented room in Mathura, where the Applicant would visit weekly and
provide for her expenses. The Prosecutrix claimed she refused to return to
Delhi out of fear that her parents would harm her. She further stated that the
police later came to Achalpur in search of her, after which she returned to
Delhi. This account was reiterated in her statement under Section 164 of
CrPC, which was recorded on the same day.
5. Based on the above account, the investigation initiated. Two years
later, on 21st August, 2019, the Prosecutrix gave another statement under
Section 161 of CrPC, wherein she supplemented her earlier version and, for
the first time, alleged that the Applicant administered intoxicating
substances to her by giving her some medicines, which prevented her from
reporting the incident earlier. The prosecution, thereafter, filed the
chargesheet on 16th October, 2019 and the Applicant was later apprehended
on 10th December, 2019.
6. During trial, on 01st March, 2023, the Prosecutrix recorded her
detailed testimony and gave an elaborate account of the events, including
her eleven-month absence from her home in Delhi. In this deposition, she
levelled serious allegations not only against the Applicant but also against
other co-accused – Dinesh Chand (the Applicant’s younger brother) and Raj
Kumar Saxena (his brother-in-law). She described repeated incidents of
physical abuse and sexual exploitation by the Applicant and further alleged
that she was assaulted by his sister, Sunita, as well as by his wife, Geeta @
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 3 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
Shakuntala. Her testimony contained a graphic recounting of physical and
sexual violence during the period she remained away from her parental
home. Pertinently, the allegations set out in this deposition materially
deviate from her earlier statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
CrPC. Taking note of these significant variations and the serious nature of
the allegations introduced for the first time in court, the Trial Court, on an
application moved by the State under Section 319 of CrPC, directed further
investigation.
7. In compliance with aforenoted directions, the prosecution yet again
recorded the statement of the Prosecutrix on 7th April, 2024, both under
Section 161 of CrPC and before the Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC.
Contentions Seeking Grant of Bail
8. In light of the aforenoted background, Mr. Gautam Khazanchi,
counsel for the Applicant, urges the following grounds to seek bail:
8.1. The testimony of the Prosecutrix recorded before the Trial Court on
1st March, 2023, is materially inconsistent with her earlier statements dated
25th April, 2017 and 21st August, 2019, recorded under Sections 161 and 164
of CrPC, respectively. This improvisation and inconsistency in her
statements severely undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
8.2. The further investigation, as directed by the Trial Court also stands
concluded and supplementary chargesheet stands filed. The Applicant has
been in custody since 10th December, 2019, and has now undergone
incarceration for more than 5 years and 6 months. The statements of the
Prosecutrix and her father have also been recorded before the Trial Court.
Therefore, continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no useful
purpose, particularly in the absence of any possibility of tampering with or
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 4 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
influencing witnesses at this stage.
8.3. The Applicant has deep roots in society and resides permanently with
his family at the address provided in Achalpur, Uttar Pradesh. There is no
apprehension of his absconding, and he has no prior criminal antecedents.
With over 20 prosecution witnesses cited, the timeline for completion of the
trial remains uncertain. Therefore, further incarceration would be excessive
and punitive, rather than necessary.
8.4. Co-accused Dinesh Chand has already been granted pre-arrest bail by
this Court vide order dated 19th September, 2024. The Applicant, therefore,
is entitled to parity, particularly as equally grave and serious allegations
have been levelled against Dinesh, and he has been released on bail. It is
also submitted that during the course of further investigation, undertaken
pursuant to the Trial Court’s directions, the Prosecutrix was unable to
identify Dinesh Chand thereby undermining the case of prosecution.
Contentions Opposing Grant of Bail
9. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, and Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu,
counsel for the Prosecutrix, strongly oppose the bail application, contending
that the Applicant is involved in a grave and serious offence involving a
minor at the time of the incident, and therefore does not deserve to be given
any indulgence.
10. Ms. Sidhu submits that the statement of the Prosecutrix recorded on
1st March, 2023, is both detailed and consistent with the trauma she endured.
The Prosecutrix, for the first time, had the opportunity to depose freely and
truthfully before the Court, without any fear or external pressure. She has
also offered a cogent explanation for her inability to disclose the full extent
of her ordeal in the earlier statements. It is urged that victims of sexual
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 5 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
abuse, particularly minors, often experience psychological trauma and
emotional repression that inhibit full disclosure during the initial stages of
investigation. The Prosecutrix was subjected to threats and sustained
intoxication, further impeding her ability to narrate the events candidly. Ms.
Sidhu contends that the so-called contradictions or improvements in her
statements must be understood in the context of post-traumatic reticence, not
as grounds to discredit her testimony. She emphasizes that, having gradually
gained emotional resilience, the Prosecutrix has now been able to recount
the full extent of the abuse. The ongoing investigation pursuant to her recent
deposition further reinforces the need for continued custody of the
Applicant, to prevent any potential obstruction in the process.
Analysis
11. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. It must be borne
in mind that the grant or denial of bail is not to be determined solely by the
seriousness of the charge, but through a holistic assessment of the legal and
factual matrix concerning the particular accused. It is a well-established
principle that, while considering a bail application, the Court must keep in
mind several factors relating to the case, such as – whether there is any
prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the
offence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of potential
punishment, risk of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, the
likelihood of the offence being repeated, etc.5 It is equally well settled that at
the stage of considering bail, the Court is not required to weigh evidence
with the rigour reserved for a trial which would make the bail proceedings
5
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 6 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
akin to a mini-trial.6
12. The matter is at the stage of trial, and therefore, any comment on the
testimonies recorded before the Trial Court would be improper and may
prejudice the case of either side. However, for the limited purpose of
deciding the request for bail, the Court is entitled, and indeed required, to
consider whether the material on record, including the nature of the
statements and the conduct of the parties, discloses circumstances
warranting the Applicant’s continued incarceration.
13. A comparison of the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164
of CrPC on 25th April, 2017, with the testimony recorded on 1st March,
2023, reveals considerable divergence in narrative. While her earlier
statements do not level direct allegations of sexual assault, the subsequent
deposition contains an elaborate account of alleged exploitation not only by
the Applicant but also by multiple co-accused. Whether these material
variations are the result of trauma, fear, or other factors inhibiting her from
making a full disclosure earlier, is a matter that must be left for final
determination by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence that may be
adduced by both sides. It suffices to note that there are material variations in
the versions, which introduce a degree of uncertainty that cannot be ignored
while adjudicating the question of continued incarceration. It is also
pertinent to note there was a substantial gap of over five years between the
recordings of the aforenoted statements – an interval that prima facie lends
weight to the contentions of the Applicant.
14. Nonetheless, the supplementary chargesheet, pursuant to Trial Court’s
6
See also: Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar& Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 497 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia, 2020 (2) SCC 118
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 7 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
directions, stands filed. Moreover, the statements of the Prosecutrix and her
father have also been recorded. As per nominal roll as on 21st April, 2025,
the Applicant has already undergone a period of custody of 5 years, 4
months and 12 days, and his jail conduct has been found to be satisfactory.
Through a catena of judgments by the Supreme Court, it has been well
established that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused person at the trial.7
15. The Court has also noted that the co-accused Dinesh Chand, against
whom allegations of a similarly serious nature have been levelled, has
already been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 19th
September 2024 in BAIL APPLN. 1981/2024. In the absence of any
demonstrated distinguishing factor in the Applicant’s role vis-à-vis the co-
accused, the ground of parity also prima facie weighs in favour of granting
bail.
16. In light of the foregoing, 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;
7
See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 8 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
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 and
fourth Friday of every month;
17. 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.
18. 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. 1118/2025 Page 9 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
19. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 30, 2025/d.negi
BAIL APPLN. 1118/2025 Page 10 of 10
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 04/08/2025 at 21:51:47
[ad_2]
Source link