Ankit Lakra vs The State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho

Court
Delhi High Court

$~121
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 07.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 615/2026
ANKIT LAKRA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pooja Kumari, Mr. Tej
Singh Varun, Mr. Deven
Varun, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr.
Manish Kumar, Ms. Seema
Rehani, Advocates

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO ..Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State.
Mr. Manan Khanna, Amicus
Curiae for R-2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking
grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 02/2026,
registered at Police Station Chankyapuri, Delhi, for the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/64(2)/65/115(2)/351(3)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’ ), Sections
363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘ IPC ’) and Section
6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereafter
‘POCSO Act’ ).
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 1 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

2. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the status report
filed by the State, are that the victim/prosecutrix, along with her
parents, had submitted a written complaint against the
accused/applicant, Ankit Lakra. In her complaint, the prosecutrix
stated that she was acquainted with the applicant and had been in a
relationship with him after they had exchanged their Instagram IDs.
She alleged that, in the year 2022, the applicant had first established
physical relations with her and thereafter used to take her to different
hotels on various occasions. As per the allegations, the last such
incident had taken place in July, 2025. It was further alleged that the
applicant had recorded private photographs and videos of the
prosecutrix. On 07.01.2026, the prosecutrix had met the applicant for
getting the said photographs and videos deleted from his mobile
phone. However, the applicant allegedly refused to delete the same,
which led to an altercation between them. At that time, the applicant
had allegedly been accompanied by his friend, namely Tushar. The
prosecutrix further alleged that the applicant had threatened her by
showing a knife, threatened to kill her, and had also slapped her,
while Tushar had threatened the friend of the prosecutrix. Thereafter,
both of them had fled from the spot, following which the prosecutrix,
along with her parents, reached the Police Station and filed the
complaint.
3. Thereafter, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was
conducted and the present FIR was registered. During investigation,
the prosecutrix supported and reiterated the allegations in her
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 2 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned
Magistrate, as well as in the history recorded in her MLC and other
statements made during investigation. The applicant was arrested on
08.01.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. The mobile
phone of the applicant was seized and sent to FSL, Rohini, and the
report thereof is stated to be awaited. The co-accused Tushar was
bound down for the offence punishable under Section 351(3) of BNS
for allegedly threatening the friend of the prosecutrix. The school
records collected during investigation reveal that the date of birth of
the prosecutrix is 18.02.2008 whereas the date of birth of the
applicant is 06.07.2004. It is stated that the main chargesheet has
already been filed before the concerned Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the
prosecutrix had been in a consensual relationship with the applicant.
It is submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody for
about four months and that the chargesheet in the present case has
already been filed. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has
recently married a person of her own choice. The learned counsel
further contends that when the father of the prosecutrix had been
hospitalized, she had sought financial assistance from the applicant
and, upon the applicant expressing his inability to provide the same,
the present FIR came to be lodged at her instance. It is also argued
that there is delay in registration of the FIR. On these grounds, it is
prayed that the applicant be admitted to bail.
5. The learned APP appearing for the State opposes the bail
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 3 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

application and argues that the prosecutrix was admittedly a minor at
the time of the alleged incidents. It is submitted that the applicant had
repeatedly established physical relations with the prosecutrix on
multiple occasions from the year 2022 till July, 2025. It is further
submitted that, during the course of investigation, it had come on
record that while booking hotel rooms, the applicant had allegedly
used a fake Aadhaar card in the name of one ‘S’, showing the
prosecutrix to be a major, and had instructed her to memorise the said
false identity in case any query was made at the hotel reception. The
learned APP further submits that the statement of said ‘S’ was
recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, wherein she had identified the
applicant, though she denied having handed over her Aadhaar Card to
him. It is also submitted that the applicant had recorded private
photographs and videos of the prosecutrix and had blackmailed her. It
is therefore prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.
6. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the prosecutrix has
also filed reply to the bail application, and vehemently opposed the
same. He has argued that the plea of the applicant regarding the
relationship being consensual is devoid of merit, as the prosecutrix
was a minor at the relevant time and, therefore, any alleged consent is
legally immaterial. It is further submitted that the applicant had
exploited the tender age and vulnerability of the prosecutrix and had
repeatedly subjected her to sexual exploitation on multiple occasions
at hotels, guest houses and at his residence, and further, he had
recorded private and objectionable photographs and videos of the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 4 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

prosecutrix during the course of their relationship. It is also
contended that on 07.01.2026, when the prosecutrix had asked the
applicant to delete the said material, the applicant had refused to do
so and had instead assaulted and criminally intimidated her by
slapping her, showing a knife and threatening to kill her if she
disclosed the incidents to anyone, and his friend Tushar had also
threatened the friend of the prosecutrix.
7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
applicant, as well as the State and the victim, and has perused the
material available on record.
8. After hearing arguments and upon perusal of the material
placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the contention
raised on behalf of the applicant, that the relationship between the
applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual, cannot come to his aid
at this stage. As per the material collected during investigation, the
prosecutrix was about 14 years of age at the time of the first alleged
incident and about 17 years of age at the time of the last alleged
incident.
9. The prosecutrix has categorically alleged that the applicant
used to take her to different hotels and guest houses where he
repeatedly established physical relations with her. It has also been
alleged that, for the purpose of booking hotel rooms, the applicant
used to submit a fake Aadhaar Card belonging to the sister of his
friend. In her supplementary statement, the prosecutrix has
specifically stated that whenever they used to visit hotels or guest
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 5 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

houses, the applicant used to force her to memorise the particulars
mentioned in the said fake Aadhaar Card, which was in the name of
one ‘S’. She has further alleged that the applicant used to compel her
to sign as ‘S’ in the hotel registers and, on occasions when she forgot
to do so, he used to scold her. During investigation, the relevant hotel
entries in this regard have been collected by the Investigating Officer,
upon identification of such hotels by the prosecutrix. The statement
of the said ‘S’ was also recorded during investigation. She stated that
about two years back, when she was residing in Dwarka, the present
applicant used to reside in the same locality and was a friend of her
brother. She categorically stated that she had never handed over her
Aadhaar Card to the applicant for any purpose and was not aware as
to how her Aadhaar Card details had come into his possession.
10. This Court is also informed that inappropriate photographs and
videos of the prosecutrix and the applicant were found in the mobile
phone which the prosecutrix had allegedly snatched from the
applicant on 07.01.2026. The said mobile phone has been seized and
sent to FSL and the report thereof is still awaited. It is the specific
allegation of the prosecutrix that the applicant used to blackmail her
on the basis of the said photographs and videos and, under such
threat, continued to sexually assault her at different places, including
hotels and his residence.
11. There is also a statement of one friend of the prosecutrix. She
has stated that she was aware of the friendship between the
prosecutrix and the applicant and that she had accompanied the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 6 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

prosecutrix to Sanjay Park, where the prosecutrix had requested the
applicant to delete her photographs and videos. However, according
to the said witness, the applicant had refused to delete the same and
had threatened the prosecutrix by showing her a knife. She has also
alleged that the applicant’s friend, Tushar, had threatened her. These
allegations are also corroborated by the statement recorded under
Section 180 of BNSS of one ‘K’, a relative of the prosecutrix, who
had also accompanied her to Sanjay Park on 07.01.2026.
12. The police has also recorded the statement of an independent
witness who stated that he had seen a boy slapping a girl (i.e. the
prosecutrix) and thereafter, the friend of the said girl had requested
him to allow them to make a phone call to the father of the girl who
had been slapped, following which his mobile phone was used for
making the said call.
13. In the above circumstances, even if it is assumed, at this stage,
that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the applicant on
certain occasions after becoming acquainted with him, the material
collected during investigation reveals that she was a minor at the time
of the alleged incidents. The allegations against the applicant are also
not confined only to establishing physical relations with the
prosecutrix, but extend to preparation of her inappropriate
photographs and videos and thereafter allegedly blackmailing and
threatening her on the basis of the same. The mobile phone allegedly
containing such material has already been seized and sent to FSL,
and the report thereof is still awaited. The material placed before this
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 7 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40

Court further reflects that entries from the concerned hotels and guest
houses have been collected during investigation, where rooms were
allegedly booked by using a fake Aadhaar card in the name of ‘S’ and
the prosecutrix had been allegedly instructed by the applicant to
represent herself as ‘S’. The statement of the said ‘S’ also supports
the prosecution case to the extent that she has denied ever handing
over her Aadhaar Card to the applicant. Furthermore, apart from the
statement of the prosecutrix, the allegations regarding the incident
dated 07.01.2026 also find prima facie support from the statements of
the prosecutrix’s friend, her relative, as well as an independent
witness.
14. The prosecutrix is yet to be examined before the learned Trial
Court. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the
material collected during investigation, and the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the applicant.
15. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
16. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 07, 2026/zp/ TD
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 615/2026 Page 8 of 8


Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:08.05.2026
19:10:40