[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
X vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CRL.) NO. 17507/2024)
X Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CRL.) NO. 17964/2024)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the complainant and the father of the
alleged minor victim. Being aggrieved by the order dated
26.11.2024 passed in Bail Application Nos.3339/2024 and
3306/2024 by the High Court of Delhi by which the High Court
has granted the relief of bail to the respondent-accused(s),
subject to certain terms and conditions, the complainant is
before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned ASG; learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent-
accused(s) and perused the material on record.
4. During the course of submissions, appellant’s counsel
Signature Not Verified
drew our attention to the tenor of the impugned order and
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.17
contended that while granting the relief of bail in a case
10:39:33 IST
Reason:
1
where serious offences have been alleged against the accused
vis-a-vis the minor victim, the High Court has failed to record
any reason for doing so.
5. In this regard, our attention was drawn to ‘paragraph 11’
of the impugned order to contend that the High Court has in
fact found fault with the contents of the FIR so as to grant
relief to the respondent-accused(s). He submitted that on a
reading of the statement of the minor victim under Section 164
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and having regard to the
serious nature of the crime alleged against the accused, the
High Court ought not to have granted the relief of bail to the
respondent-accused(s). He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order may be set-aside and the bail granted to the
respondent-accused(s) may be cancelled.
6. Learned senior counsel and learned ASG appearing for the
respondent-State also supported the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant herein. She contended that having
regard to the fact that the victim is a minor girl child, the
allegations against the accused are serious and therefore the
High Court ought to have been more cautious in considering the
case of the respondent-accused(s).
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s)
supported the impugned order and contended that the accused
have been enjoying the relief of the bail order since November
2024, that there has been no violation of any of the terms and
conditions of the bail; that they have been cooperating with
the Sessions Court inasmuch as they have been appearing on all
2
dates of hearing. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in
light of the facts of the present case and in light of the
impugned order. We note that the allegations made against the
respondent-accused(s) in FIR No.303/2024 dated 28.05.2024 are
under Sections 120B, 323, 328, 354, 354D, 376, 376(C) and 506
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6, 10 and 17 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012. The
respondent-accused were remanded to judicial custody on
02.06.2024 when they were arrested from Khanauri Mandi, Punjab
from the house of accused No.1. The chargesheet was filed on
24.07.2024. The investigation has been carried out and since
respondent-accused(s) were arrested they sought for relief of
bail before the Trial Court which was dismissed. Being
aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the respondent-
accused(s) preferred their bail applications before the High
Court.
9. We have perused the impugned order passed by the High
Court by granting the relief of bail. We note that while the
High Court has recorded the submissions of the learned counsel
for the respective parties at length has given reason only in
‘paragraph 11’ for the purpose of granting the relief of bail.
For immediate reference, we extract ‘paragraph 11’ of the
impugned order as under:
“11. The complaint being filed by the victim in this case
on the basis of which criminal proceedings were initiated3
is meticulously being made with a subject and makes
leveling serious allegations against the petitioners.
However, the complaint is silent about the time period
during which the offence was committed except that the
complaint dated 24.05.2024, the complainant has stated
that this had been happening for the last five-six
months. Except this, there is no specific date and time
of any alleged incident, if we compare this testimony
with the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
which was recorded on 29.05.2024, the victim gave the
alleged time of offence as only in November, 2023 and
December, 2023. This is an apparently marked
contradictions. The allegations against Shaveta Kataria
is only regarding giving intoxicating consumable and
abatement of offence, the allegations against Ashish
Kansal is that he also started doing the same thing which
allegedly Shekhar Kansal is doing. The Court has to
restrain itself to make any comment on the merits of the
case and it may prejudice the parties.”
10. On a perusal of the same, we find that the reasons
assigned thereunder are not in tandem with the relief that was
actually sought for and the relief that was granted to the
respondent-accused(s).
11. In the circumstances, we find that even though several
conditions may have been imposed while granting bail, we are of
the view that the High Court ought to have considered the
matter(s) from all perspectives and as to whether the accused
were entitled to the relief of bail.
4
12. In the circumstances, we find that the ends of justice
would be met in the instant cases if the impugned order is set
aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for
reconsideration of the bail applications made by the
respondents before the High Court.
13. Since we are remanding the matter to the High Court, we
request the High Court to dispose of the bail applications at
the earliest and within a period of one month from first date
of hearing. For that purpose, the parties shall appear in-
person or through their respective counsel before the High
Court on 23.07.2025.
14. Since we have requested the High Court to dispose of the
bail applications in a time-bound manner and bearing in mind
the fact that the respondent-accused(s) had the benefit of the
impugned order, we direct that no coercive steps shall be taken
till the disposal of the bail applications by the High Court.
15. However, the respondent-accused(s) shall cooperate with
the Sessions Court and shall appear on all dates of hearings
when they are required to do so. The reconsideration of their
matters by the High Court would not come in the way of the
Sessions Court’s proceedings in the matters.
16. The bonds executed by the respondent-accused(s) shall
remain till the disposal of the applications filed by the
respondent-accused(s) herein by the High Court.
5
These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………,J.
( B.V. NAGARATHNA )
…………………………………………………………,J.
( K.V. VISWANATHAN )
NEW DELHI;
JULY 15, 2025
6
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17507/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-11-2024
in BA No. 3339/2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
X Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 289337/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 106990/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 292517/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 292515/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 131949/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 107005/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 17964/2024 (II-D)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
294933/2024
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA
295851/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 295852/2024
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 107046/2025
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA
107048/2025
IA No. 294933/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 107046/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 295852/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 295851/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 107048/2025 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 15-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Yogesh Gehlaut, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR
7
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.
Ms. Alka Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Anand, Adv.
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Adlakha, Adv.
Ms. Harleen Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Radha, Adv.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The Criminal Appeals are disposed of in terms of the
signed order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
8
[ad_2]
Source link