Randhir Kumar vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi Anr

$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 29.05.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 876/2026, CRL.M.A. 13283/2026, CRL.M.A.
13284/2026, CRL.M.(BAIL) 480/2026

RANDHIR KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Sacchin
Puri, and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari,
Sr. Advocates with Ms. Nattasha
Garg, Ms. Azra Rehman, Mr.
Anubhav Dubey, Mr. Naren Rajput,
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Akash
Gehlot and Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Advocates.

versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State.
Insp. Annu, P.S. Neb Sarai.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
J U D G M E N T
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘BNSS’), the petitioner
seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.278/2025 dated 25.06.2025
registered at P.S.: Neb Sarai, Delhi, initially under sections
376/506/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Upon
conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 23.08.2025 was filed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 1 of 17

alleging offences under sections 376 of the IPC and
64(1)/69/115(2)/74/75/351/126(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (‘BNS’). In essence, the FIR relates to allegations of repeated
sexual assault, criminal intimidation, and physical assault by the
petitioner upon the complainant at different locations.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 27.02.2026.
3. Status report dated 16.03.2026 has been filed on behalf of the State.
4. Nominal roll dated 13.03.2026 has been requisitioned from the Jail

Superintendent.
5. Pursuant to intimation sent, the complainant has also been represented
in the present proceedings.
6. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 25.02.2026, except for
a brief period of interim bail for 02 days, as noted below.
7. The record further shows that investigation qua the principal
allegations against the petitioner is complete; charge-sheet dated
23.08.2025 as well as supplementary chargesheet dated 24.11.2025
already stand filed before the learned trial court, though certain forensic
reports relating to the seized electronic material are awaited, which
may be filed by way of a further supplementary chargesheet.
8. The court has heard Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Sacchin Puri, and Mr.
Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner; Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP for the State; as also Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the prosecutrix alongwith the
prosecutrix in-person.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 2 of 17

B RIEF B ACKGROUND
9. The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR and in the status report
filed by the State, is that the FIR came to be registered on 25.06.2025
on a complaint made by the prosecutrix on 24.06.2025 alleging
repeated sexual assault, criminal intimidation, physical assault and
related offences at the hands of the petitioner. The prosecutrix was
medically examined at AIIMS, New Delhi on 24.06.2025 and certain
injuries were noted in her MLC.
10. The status report narrates that statements of the prosecutrix were

recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS; site plans of the
relevant places were prepared; CCTV footage from one of the locations
where the offence is alleged to have been committed, namely, The
Country Club (Saket Club - New Delhi), Sainik Farms, New Delhi was
obtained and analyzed; and visit details concerning Yupiter Hospital,
Green Park Extension, New Delhi, were also verified.
11. Pursuant to interim protection granted by the learned trial court vidé
order dated 28.06.2025, the petitioner joined investigation and had
produced his mobile phone, which was seized and sent for forensic
examination.
12. The State points-out that the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner
vidé order dated 16.07.2025 by the learned Sessions Court was
subsequently cancelled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court vidé
judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed in BAIL APPLN. No.2818/2025. It
is also the State’s submission that a Special Leave Petition bearing
SLP(Crl.) No.18446/2025 preferred by the petitioner against the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 3 of 17

cancelling anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Supreme Court vidé
order dated 17.11.2025.
S UBMISSIONS ON B EHALF OF THE P ETITIONER
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the genesis of the
matter is a prolonged relationship of about 05 years between the
petitioner and the prosecutrix, both of whom are ‘major’ and both of
whom belong to the legal profession. It has been urged, that as would
be noticed in the petitioner’s written submissions, while granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, even the learned Sessions Court had
observed that there had been no prior complaint by the prosecutrix; that
she used to visit the petitioner’s house and had also worked with him as
his intern; and that it appeared improbable that the prosecutrix was
unaware of the petitioner’s marital status.
14. Next it has been submitted, that though a Co-ordinate Bench of this
court had cancelled the petitioner’s anticipatory bail on apprehensions
arising from certain surrounding circumstances, those circumstances
had nothing to do with the merits of the allegations of rape made by the
prosecutrix, but arose from the Co-ordinate Bench’s concern that the
petitioner had attempted to interfere with the judicial process. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the following extract
of the Co-ordinate Bench’s judgment dated 07.11.2025:
“ 42. Although the allegations in relation to extortion require
further investigation, it cannot be denied that the material relied
upon by Respondent No.2 prima facie indicates that the prosecutrix
received some amount and made certain demands as well. At the
same time, peculiarly, no material has been placed on record to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 4 of 17

show such threats of extortion being extended to Respondent No.2.
Whether the prosecutrix was being pressured into settling the matter
which led her to taking monetary consideration for diluting the case,
or if the case was instituted with the sole intent of extortion cannot
be determined at this juncture.
“ 43. Before proceeding further, this Court is constrained to
note with significant dismay that the record of the present matter has
been inundated with a number of transcripts and recordings to show
that the other side has been making attempts to subvert the judicial
process and twist law to their whims. As noted above, there appears
to be some merit in the material placed on record by both sides. This
Court is thus met with an uncanny conundrum where it appears that
both the parties have made an absolute mockery of justice.
“ 44. However, insofar as the question of cancellation of bail
is concerned, even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix made
attempts to extort money, Respondent No.2 cannot be absolved as a
bare perusal of the transcripts as well as Status Reports prima facie
indicate that he has made an egregious affront to the principles of
justice by attempting to pay the prosecutrix through a judicial
officer, who will concededly have authoritative influence, instead of
making a complaint in this regard. Furthermore, this Court also
cannot excuse the clear attempts made by Respondent No.2 to skirt
the direction of not contacting the prosecutrix after grant of interim
protection by contacting her through Khalil.
“ 45. One of the main tenets to cancel bail is interference
with the process of law. The circumstances brought forth in the
present proceedings are so overwhelming that they have shocked the
conscience of this Court and the same reflect that there is apparent
interference with the administration of justice, which warrants
interference with the liberty granted to Respondent No.2.
“ 46. As noted above, the learned Trial Court cannot be
faulted for granting pre-arrest bail to Respondent No.2 as the
allegations which led to registration of the FIR entitle him to such a
relief on account of a multitude of factors, including the duration of
the relationship between the parties as well as the improbability of
the prosecutrix being ignorant of the marital status of Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 5 of 17

No.2. However, at the same time, the unbridled attempts made by
Respondent No.2 to interfere with the administration of justice have
to be dealt with strict hands. The allegations in the present case are
not of such nature which can be shirked casually. ”

15. It is pointed-out that on the merits of the matter therefore, the Co-
ordinate Bench had noted in favor of the petitioner in that judgment.
16. On the issue concerning alleged interference with the judicial process,
learned counsel have submitted that the two judicial officers whose
recorded conversations have surfaced in the matter were known to the
prosecutrix since she had interned with them and not to the petitioner
in any manner relevant to the present controversy. It has been
emphasized that it is the admitted position that the prosecutrix had
interned with both judicial officers; and that she had reached-out to
them repeatedly at odd hours, and that the officers spoke with her in
their personal capacity since they knew the prosecutrix as their former
intern and as a member of the legal fraternity, and not in connection
with any judicial proceedings pending before them .
17. It has been argued that neither of the said judicial officers was seized of
the case arising from the present FIR; that no judicial officer dealing
with the subject FIR was ever approached; and that the engagement of
the prosecutrix with the two judicial officers, initiated by her, cannot be
used as a circumstance to deny liberty to the petitioner. It has further
been submitted that while action on the administrative side is stated to
have been initiated by the Delhi High Court against the said officers,
such administrative action cannot, in law, furnish a ground to deny bail
to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 6 of 17

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
investigation in the matter is complete; that chargesheet as well as the
supplementary chargesheet have already been filed; and that the
Investigating Officer herself has stated before the learned Sessions
Court that no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required. In that view of the matter, it has been urged that no purpose
would be served by continuing to keep the petitioner in custody any
longer.
19. It has also been submitted that the prosecutrix has now unequivocally

stated that she does not oppose the grant of regular bail to the
petitioner; that she has even given her consent and ‘no-objection’ to the
quashing of the FIR in its entirety. In this behalf, the petitioner has
relied upon Memorandum of Understanding notarized on 01.12.2025 to
contend that no subsisting grievance remains as between the
prosecutrix and the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner have
also drawn attention to order dated 26.02.2026 of the learned Sessions
Court and the record of proceedings in February and April 2026 before
this court, when the prosecutrix had personally appeared and reiterated
her ‘no‑objection’ to the grant of bail.
20. The petitioner has submitted that in the legal fraternity it is common for
younger members to contact their seniors or former mentors for
guidance in moments of difficulty, and such communications, in and of
themselves, cannot be perceived as interference in the judicial process,
particularly where no presiding officer in seisin of the case has been
approached . Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed-out that all
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 7 of 17

interactions with the two judicial officers that have been relied-on were
initiated by the prosecutrix in her personal capacity and not at the
petitioner’s instance .
21. On the necessity of further incarceration, the petitioner has relied on
the fact that the main chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were
both filed without arresting the petitioner; and the I.O. has clearly
stated before the learned Sessions Court that no further custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required.
22. The petitioner has stressed the fact that he was not arrested during

investigation and was taken into custody only after cancellation of his
anticipatory bail, which is contrary to the principle that arrest must not
be used punitively where the accused has co-operated and is not likely
to abscond.
23. It has been pointed-out on behalf of the petitioner that he has now been
in judicial custody for more than 64 days ; and that he satisfies the
‘triple test’ for grant of bail. It has been submitted that the petitioner is
a permanent resident of Delhi; he is a practicing advocate with deep
roots in society; that he has joined investigation and had surrendered in
compliance with the court’s order, thereby ruling-out any possibility
that he will abscond. It has further been contended that with the filing
of the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, all documentary and
digital evidence already stands collected and has been placed before the
learned trial court, and therefore, there is also no possibility that the
petitioner would tamper with evidence. It has also been submitted that
there is no realistic risk that the petitioner would influence the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 8 of 17

prosecutrix, who has herself settled the dispute with the petitioner and
is supporting grant of bail to him.
24. The petitioner has also placed on record compelling personal
circumstances: viz., an ailing wife with psychiatric illness requiring
supervision, 03 minor children dependent on him, aged parents and
staff whose livelihood is affected, and disruption of his professional
duties towards existing clients. The petitioner has submitted that in bail
jurisprudence, where liberty is to be balanced against societal interest,
such factors coupled with the fact that investigation in the matter is
complete, weigh in favor of the petitioner’s release on bail, especially
when the prosecutrix has reconciled with him and does not wish to
pursue the matter.
UBMISSIONS ON EHALF OF THE TATE
S B S
25. On the other hand, relying on their status report and the written
submissions, learned APP for the State has opposed the grant of regular
bail. It has been submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are
serious and include forced sexual intercourse, criminal intimidation,
physical assault, and exploitation of the prosecutrix on a false promise
of marriage, including allegations relating to medical termination of
pregnancy by the prosecutrix.
26. The State has further contended that after grant of anticipatory bail, the

petitioner violated the conditions of such bail and attempted to
influence the prosecutrix and other witnesses, which is what led to
cancellation of anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court. It
has been argued, that the petitioner is shown to have abused the liberty
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 9 of 17

granted to him earlier, and that there is no material change in
circumstances warranting grant of regular bail to him now.
27. Another plank of the State’s opposition concerns the allegations that
the petitioner has attempted to interfere in the administration of justice.
The State has relied upon the observations extracted in their written
submissions from the earlier judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
court cancelling anticipatory bail, particularly the observations where
the Bench refers to audio recordings indicating that attempts were
made to get the prosecutrix to dilute her case in exchange for money
and other inducements, allegedly with the intercession of two judicial
officers.
28. It has been further submitted by the State, that though chargesheet and
supplementary charge-sheet have been filed, further investigation is
still underway as regards the electronic evidence collected, including
FSL analysis of certain incriminating audio recordings. The State has
therefore argued, that if the petitioner were to be released on bail at this
stage, there is a grave possibility that he would influence witnesses or
tamper with evidence.
29. Learned APP has also submitted that the alleged settlement between the
petitioner and the prosecutrix is itself under a cloud, since the
prosecutrix had earlier approached this court alleging that she was
being put under threat, inducement and pressure to compromise the
case. According to the State, a ‘no-objection’ of the prosecutrix in a
serious offence of this nature cannot be the sole basis for exercise of
discretion for granting bail to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 10 of 17

30. The State has submitted that when the petitioner’s SLP challenging the
cancellation of anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench, was
dismissed by the Supreme Court, and he was granted liberty to
surrender to custody and then apply for regular bail, the petitioner did
not do so within the 02 week period granted by the Supreme Court,
which shows that he is not law-abiding.
31. The State has further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual
offender, pointing to his past involvement in two other rape FIRs
(though he was acquitted in both); and it has been argued that the
petitioner’s conduct shows a pattern. It has also been urged that since
the petitioner is the prosecutrix’s senior in the legal profession, it
heightens the State’s concern that the petitioner would influence and
pressurize the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The State has denied
that the relationship between the parties was consensual throughout,
and it has been contended that the prosecutrix’s complaint makes
specific allegations of non‑consensual acts and exploitation on false
promise of marriage.
32. Most significantly, the State has relied on what it terms “glaring”
allegations of interference with the administration of justice, viz., that
two judicial officers have attempted to pressurize the prosecutrix to
dilute her case; and that this has allegedly been done at the petitioner’s
behest. The State has cited earlier High Court findings noting that
prima-facie the audio recording of conversations with “Judicial
Officer‑1” refers to an amount of Rs.30 lacs to be kept ready to pay the
prosecutrix, and to offers of employment being made to her, submitting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 11 of 17

that unbridled attempts were being made to interfere with justice,
which conduct had shocked the conscience of the court.
D ISCUSSION & C ONCLUSIONS
33. The court has considered the rival submissions of the parties. At the
outset, it requires to be noticed that the present petition has been filed
seeking regular bail and not for adjudication of the prosecution case on
merits. At this stage, the court is required to assess whether continued
incarceration of the petitioner is necessary having regard to the stage of
the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, the material collected
after investigation, tested on the well-settled principles governing grant
of bail.
34. Insofar as the offence which is the subject matter of the FIR is
concerned, the record placed before this court shows that the petitioner
and the prosecutrix are both ‘major’. The record also shows that the
prosecutrix has now stated that she does not oppose the grant of bail to
the petitioner; and she has also furnished her consent and ‘no-objection’
to the quashing of the FIR in its entirety.
35. This court is conscious that in offences alleging rape or sexual assault,
the consent of the prosecutrix to grant of bail or even her support to a
settlement, cannot by itself be dispositive of the matter. At the same
time, the stand taken by the prosecutrix is undoubtedly a relevant
circumstance while assessing the necessity of continued custody of the
accused, particularly where the parties are both adults and are supposed
to have been in a relationship for several years, and the prosecutrix
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 12 of 17

does not appear, at least from the circumstances, to be a vulnerable
individual.
36. In his submissions, the petitioner has also referred to the observations
of the learned Sessions Court while granting him anticipatory bail,
including the observation that the parties had been in a prolonged
relationship of about 05 years; that the prosecutrix used to visit the
petitioner’s house; that she had worked with him as his intern; and that
it appeared improbable that she remained unaware of his marital status.
These observations, though not determinative of the merits, do lend
support to the submission that the present case arises from a
relationship between adults.
37. The aforesaid position notwithstanding, the aspect of this matter which
is of the most serious concern to this court, is the allegation that the
petitioner had attempted to interfere in the judicial process and in
furtherance of that two judicial officers got involved in the matter.
38. Coming to the allegations of interference with the judicial process, the
material presently relied upon by the State is undoubtedly serious.
However, as pointed-out by the petitioner, even on the State’s
reckoning, the communications which have surfaced are between the
prosecutrix and two judicial officers known to the prosecutrix ; which
also show that it was the prosecutrix who had approached those
officers; and that the judicial officers were not concerned with, or
seized of, the case arising from the FIR in their judicial capacity .
39. It is significant and bears repetition, that it is not the prosecution case
that the case arising from the subject FIR was pending before either of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 13 of 17

the two judicial officers; or that they had dealt with it at any point in
time. Neither of the two judicial officers was therefore concerned with
the case in their judicial capacity .
40. Furthermore, the circumstance that it was the prosecutrix who had
known the judicial officers since she had interned under them appears
to be substantiated.
41. This court is also of the view that any action against the judicial
officers by the Delhi High Court would take its own course, in
accordance with law; however, such action against the officers cannot
be a ground, in and of itself, to deny bail to the petitioner in the subject
FIR.
42. Another important circumstance is that the investigation in the present
case is, in all material ways complete, except for certain FSL reports
that are awaited. The status report records that the main as well as
supplementary chargesheet already stand filed. The petitioner has also
drawn attention to the statement of the Investigating Officer before the
learned Sessions Court that no further custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required.
43. In its decision in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of
1
Investigation , the Supreme Court has emphasized the true purpose of
pre-trial detention; and has said that once investigation is complete and
chargesheet has been filed, continued custody of an accused without
compelling reason, amounts to pre-trial punishment, which is

1
(2012) 1 SCC 40
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 14 of 17

undesirable. The following words of the Supreme Court are
noteworthy:
“ 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the
appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount
of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is
required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when
called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the
principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every
man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. ”

44. The material on record at this stage also does not persuade this court to
hold that the petitioner does not qualify the ‘triple test’ for grant of bail.
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and a practicing
Advocate. He had joined investigation earlier and has surrendered
pursuant to court orders. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution,
including the electronic material, medical evidence and CCTV footage,
already stands collected and forms part of the charge-sheets filed before
the learned trial court.
45. The petitioner has also served sufficient time in judicial custody as an
undertrial; and no useful purpose will be served by detaining the
petitioner in custody any longer, subject of course to stringent
conditions to ensure the fairness and integrity of the trial process and
protection of the prosecutrix and other witnesses.
46. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this court is
therefore of the view, that a case is made-out for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 15 of 17

47. Accordingly, the present bail petition is allowed.
48. The petitioner – Randhir Kumar s/o Shri Lal Shab – is admitted to
regular bail pending trial in case FIR No.278/2025 dated 25.06.2025
registered at P.S.: Neb Sarai, New Delhi, subject to the following
conditions:
48.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the
like amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court;
48.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a
cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at
any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched-on at all times;
48.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the
learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without
prior permission of the learned trial court;
48.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The
petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge
in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial; and
48.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 16 of 17

49. Since the petitioner is facing trial and would therefore be appearing
before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered
necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a condition of regular
bail.
50. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the pending matter.
51. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
forthwith .
52. The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

53. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
MAY 29, 2026 /HJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
RAWAT
Signing
Date:29.05.2026 14:59
BAIL APPLN. 876/2026 Page 17 of 17