Delhi High Court – Orders
Sanjeev Yadav vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4448/2024
SANJEEV YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.
SI Rakesh Gilla, P.S. NFC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.08.2025
1. The present application filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731 read with Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising from
FIR No. 162/2022 dated 7th April, 2022, registered at P.S. New Friends
Colony for the offences under Sections 376/342/363 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18603 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.4
2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. On 7th April, 2022, a PCR call vide GD No. 75A was received from
Taimur Nagar, Pahari No. 2, reporting the commission of rape on a minor
girl aged approximately 7-8 years. The information was marked to HC1
“Cr.P.C.”
2
“BNSS”
3
“IPC”
4
“POCSO”
BAIL APPLN. 4448/2024 Page 1 of 6
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 23:18:31
Jaipal for necessary action. Pursuant to the call, HC Jaipal reached the
location of the incident and brought the Complainant ‘SK’ (Prosecutrix)
along with her mother ‘RK’ to the police station. Considering the nature of
the allegations, which involved sexual assault on a minor girl, the matter
was entrusted to W/SI Priyanka for further investigation.
2.2. W/SI Priyanka recorded the statement of the Prosecutrix, wherein she
stated that she was 12 years old. She alleged that the Applicant, who was her
neighbour, took her to his house, whereafter he took off his pants, and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Upon her mother’s return, the
Prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her.
2.3. Thereafter, the Prosecutrix was counselled by a CIC counsellor and
medically examined at AIIMS Hospital, vide MLC No. 2610/22. Following
the medical examination, the doctor handed over certain exhibits, which
were taken into possession through a seizure memo.
2.4. During the course of investigation, the statement of the Prosecutrix
was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that the
‘uncle’ (whose name she was unable to recall) resided on the same street as
her residence. She alleged that the Applicant took her to his house, removed
her clothes and spilled a water-like fluid on her. Thereafter, he removed his
pants, gave her chocolate and began climbing on her.
2.5. The Applicant was arrested on 7th April, 2022 and remanded to
judicial custody. The seized exhibits were forwarded to FSL Rohini, for
examination. The report received from the laboratory was found to be
positive. The age of the Prosecutrix was verified through the records of
SDMC Primary School, Khizrabad, New Delhi, and was confirmed to be 10
years and one month at the time of the incident.
BAIL APPLN. 4448/2024 Page 2 of 6
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 23:18:31
2.6. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before
the Court, and charges under Sections 363, 366A, 342, 376 of the IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO were framed against the Applicant.
2.7. During the trial, the Prosecutrix and her mother have consistently
supported the allegations contained in the FIR.
2.8. The Applicant’s bail application was previously dismissed by the
Trial Court vide order dated 30th May, 2025.
3. Counsel for Applicant seeks regular bail on the following grounds:
3.1. The Applicant is innocent, and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Further, regard must also be given to the fact that the Applicant
is a senior citizen.
3.2. The investigation has been completed and the matter is currently at
the stage of trial, with the statements of the Prosecutrix and her mother
having been recorded. Therefore, the Applicant’s continued detention is no
longer necessary, and will serve no fruitful purpose.
3.3. The Applicant has a clean record and, considering his advanced age
and health conditions, his detention is causing him undue hardship and
irreparable injury.
3.4. The object of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused during trial
and is neither punitive nor preventive. The Applicant has been in custody
since 8th April, 2022, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take further
time. Therefore, the Applicant’s continued pre-trial incarceration is
unwarranted, and amounts to punitive detention.
4. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, opposes the bail application
on the grounds that the allegations against the Applicant are of a heinous
nature, involving the alleged commission of penetrative sexual assault on aBAIL APPLN. 4448/2024 Page 3 of 6
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 23:18:31
child aged 12 years. He submits that both the Prosecutrix and her mother
have consistently supported the Prosecution’s case. In addition to the
Prosecution testimony, he points to scientific evidence in the form of the
FSL report, which clearly implicates the Applicant. In view of the gravity of
the offence and the supporting evidence, he contends that the Applicant’s
advanced age is not a sufficient ground to release him on bail
5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by both parties.
The Applicant stands accused of a grave and serious offence under Section 6
of the POCSO Act, involving allegations of committing aggravated
penetrative sexual assault on a child aged merely 10-12 years at the relevant
time. While it is noted that the Applicant has been in judicial custody since
8th April, 2022, this fact alone does not outweigh the gravity of the offence
alleged against him.
6. The Prosecutrix, in her statements, has consistently supported the
allegations, which form the foundation of the FIR. Furthermore, it is
pertinent to note that the Trial Court, while considering the Applicant’s bail
application, had interacted with the Prosecutrix and her mother, both of
whom expressed a credible apprehension for their safety in the event of his
release, particularly as the Applicant resides directly opposite their
residence. This proximity, coupled with the gravity of the allegations,
strengthens the concern of potential intimidation or undue influence.
7. In addition to the statements of the Prosecutrix and her mother, the
Prosecution’s case is supported by positive scientific evidence, as reflected
in the FSL Report. While the probative and evidentiary value of the
scientific evidence shall be examined at the stage of trial; however, in the
opinion of the Court, the Prosecution has made out a prima facie case
BAIL APPLN. 4448/2024 Page 4 of 6
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 23:18:31
justifying the denial of bail to the Applicant.
8. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the recent case of Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias
Deepu alias Deepak and Anr.,5 wherein the Court emphasised that bail is a
discretionary relief, to be granted or denied based on the specific facts and
circumstances of each case. The Court further delineated the factors to be
taken into consideration while exercising such discretion. The relevant
extracts of the aforenoted judgment are as follows:
“11. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means
that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner
and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon
contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary
from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for
considering the application for grant of bail. However, it can be noted
that:
11.1. While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as
the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations
entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the
accusations.
11.2. Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with
or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should
also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
11.3. While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be
always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
11.4. Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only
the clement of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter
of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to have an order of bail.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. In light of the foregoing legal principles, we must also give due
regard to the substantial disparity in age between the Applicant, a senior
citizen, and the child victim, who was of tender years at the relevant time.
5
2023 INSC 761.
BAIL APPLN. 4448/2024 Page 5 of 6
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 23:18:31
Such an imbalance, coupled with the nature of the allegations, heightens the
gravity of the offence. The evidence adduced so far, including the consistent
statements of the Prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., medical
examination, and the FSL report, provides prima facie corroboration to the
Prosecution’s case. In these circumstances, and particularly having regard to
the stage of trial and the apprehensions expressed by the Complainant and
her mother, this Court does not find any compelling ground to enlarge the
Applicant on bail. The application is accordingly dismissed.
10. 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 14, 2025
as
BAIL APPLN. 4448/2024 Page 6 of 6
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 23:18:31