REDACTED vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement Reserved on 24.06.2026
Date of pronounced on: 29.06.2026
Judgement uploaded on: As per digital signature
+ CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 CRL.M.A. 16006/2026 &
CRL.M.A. 17636/2026
STATE .....Petitioner
versus
LALIT KUMAR .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. Aman Usman, APP
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
+ CRL.M.C. 3966/2026
XXXX .....Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar and Ms. Sheenu
Priya, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. Aman Usman, APP
for respondent no.1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 1 of 16

Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
VINOD KUMAR, J.
1. The CRL. M.C. – 3956/2026 preferred by the State and
CRL. M.C – 3966/2026 preferred by the complainant have been
filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, “BNSS”), assailing the order dated
07.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC-
POCSO), South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Bail
Matter No.3991/2026 titled as “Lalit Kumar vs. State”, whereby
regular bail was granted to the respondent-Lalit Kumar in FIR
No. 104/2026 registered at Police Station Janak Puri for offences
punishable under Sections 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter, “BNS”) and 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, “POCSO”).
2. CRL.M.C. – 3966/2026 has been preferred on behalf of the
victim’s mother, who had lodged the aforesaid FIR. Accused
Lalit Kumar is respondent no.2 in it and therefore, whenever the
word ‘respondent’ is referred to, it will also mean respondent
no.2 of this petition. Since both the Petitions challenge the same
impugned order granting bail to the respondent and arise out of
the same FIR, they are being decided by this common judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 2 of 16

FACTS
3. Briefly stated the facts as alleged by petitioners are that on
28.04.2026, the minor victim, aged about 3 years and daughter of
the Complainant, was enrolled in the Nursery Class at a Junior
School at Narang Colony, Janak Puri, Delhi, which is affiliated
with a Senior Secondary School, Janakpuri. The said Junior
School had a total of approximately 34 students and 10 staff
members, comprising six female teachers, two female maids, one
guard, namely Gopal, and the Respondent (Caretaker/Upper
Division Clerk). The Respondent was one of only two male
persons posted in the Junior Wing.
4. On 30.04.2026, the minor victim attended school for only
the second time. She was dropped by her mother at the school at
about 08:00 AM. The Complainant mother requested the teacher
at the gate to send the child home early as she was unwell.
Thereafter, the mother returned home.
5. On 30.04.2026, at about 4:00 PM, after returning from
school at approximately 12:00 noon and waking up from sleep,
the minor victim started crying and pointed to her private part,
complaining of severe pain. The minor victim disclosed to her
mother that a “ bada sa ladka ” present at school had taken her
downstairs and that the man had touched his finger in her private
part causing pain and bleeding.
6. On the intervening night of 30.04.2026/01.05.2026, the
complainant i.e. mother of the victim informed the police by
calling Emergency Number 112, whereupon FIR No. 104 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 3 of 16

2026 was registered at P.S. Janakpuri on 01.05.2026 at 08:15 AM
under Section 64(1), BNS and Section 6, POCSO Act.
7. On 01.05.2026 at about 06:30 PM, in the presence of her
parents, the minor victim identified the Respondent at Police
Station Janakpuri as the person who had taken her to the
basement and touched her private part. Subsequently, on
05.05.2026, the minor victim also identified her class teacher
Kriti Sahni as the “Madam” who had taken her to the basement
and cleaned the blood stains, corroborating the child’s earlier
disclosure to her mother.
8. When the police personnel of Police Station Janakpuri
contacted the Respondent on 01.05.2026 at 11:00 AM to
facilitate inspection of the school premises and CCTV cameras,
he did not to cooperate and deliberately delayed the process for
approximately 3–4 hours, before being brought to the police
station for inquiry at 05:00 PM. It is submitted that this initial
non-cooperation is a significant circumstance indicative of the
Respondent’s consciousness of guilt. Subsequently, at about
08:40 PM on 01.05.2026, the Respondent was arrested in the
subject FIR and all arrest related procedures were complied with
by the Investigating Agency.
9. During investigation, the minor victim was medically
examined at DDU Hospital and a Medical Legal Report was
prepared. Statements of the complainant and the minor victim
were recorded. The minor victim’s statement under Section 183
BNSS was recorded before the Duty JMFC on 02.05.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 4 of 16

10. The scene of crime, that is, basement area of the Junior
Wing school, was inspected on 02.05.2026 with the minor
victim, who independently identified the room of the alleged
incident. The Crime Team conducted photography and lifted
forensic exhibits, including blood-stained tissue paper and a cut
piece of bed sheet, which have been sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for examination. The reports of the FSL are still
awaited.
11. Investigating Officer found that approximately 64 CCTV
cameras installed in the school premises were non-functional at
the relevant time. The DVR of the CCTV system has been seized
for forensic examination. Further, one portable camera installed
at the school reception was found operational, and its footage
was examined. The CCTV footage of the portable camera
revealed that the Respondent was seen moving towards the
school gallery/passage, the area through which children enter the
school, at about 08:13–08:15 AM on 30.04.2026, and was seen
returning from the same passage at about 08:37 AM.
12. It is submitted that the Respondent’s bail application was
strongly opposed by the prosecution before learned Additional
Sessions Judge. The Petitioner-State had filed its reply to the Bail
application before the Ld. Trial Court, wherein entire narration of
the investigation thus far was placed on record of the Court.
However, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge vide the Impugned
Order dated 07.05.2026, was pleased to grant regular bail to the
Respondent primarily on the ground that as per CCTV footage
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 5 of 16

the Respondent had left the Junior Wing of the school at about
08:37 AM and had not returned thereafter, that the respondent
had joined investigation, and that custodial interrogation was no
longer required.
IMPUGNED ORDER
13. As already stated, the respondent filed an application
seeking regular bail before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge.
14. While considering the application, learned Trial Court
noted that the footage retrieved from the CCTV camera depicted
the respondent entering the passage leading towards the interior
portion of the school premises at about 08:13 AM and thereafter
returning at approximately 08:37 AM. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge observed that the footage did not indicate the
presence of the applicant inside the Junior Wing beyond the said
time and further noted the defence contention that in another
footage the respondent can be seen entering the Senior Wing
school building shortly thereafter.
15. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also adverted to the
MLC of the victim prepared at DDU Hospital. Upon examining
the medical record, the Court noted that no injury or redness or
any other mark was found on the body of the prosecutrix
including the private part of the victim.
16. Having regard to the stage of investigation, the absence of
any further requirement of custodial interrogation, the medical
material placed on record, the electronic evidence relied upon by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 6 of 16

the defence, the age and antecedents of the applicant, learned
Trial Court concluded that no sufficient grounds existed for
continued detention of the applicant during the pendency of the
proceedings.
17. In nutshell, the points, which heavily weighed with learned
Additional Sessions Judge while granting the bail, are delineated
as under :
1. The Respondent had left the Junior Wing at around
8:37 AM and had not returned thereafter.
2. The CCTV footage corroborated the Respondent’s
presence at the Senior School soon thereafter.
3. The MLC revealed no injury, redness or marks on
the body of the child victim, including her private
parts.
4. The Respondent had joined the investigation
whenever called by the Investigating Agency.
5. There was nothing on record to suggest that the
Respondent had attempted to flee or interfere with
the investigation.
6. The relevant DVRs and other articles had already
been seized by the Investigation Agency.
7. The teachers of the Junior Wing had already been
examined during investigation.
8. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the
Respondent behind bars any longer.
18. Accordingly, learned Trial Court allowed the application
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 7 of 16

for regular bail and directed the release of the respondent on bail,
subject to furnishing the requisite bail bonds and compliance with
the conditions imposed in the impugned order.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
19. Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Trial Court
erred in granting regular bail to the respondent without duly
appreciating the gravity and seriousness of the allegations. It was
contended that the respondent is accused of committing
aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a three-year-old child,
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and that the
impugned order fails to consider the settled parameters governing
the grant of bail in cases involving offences of such grave nature.
Reliance was placed upon Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496.
20. It was further submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the material collected during investigation.
According to the petitioners, the CCTV footage places the
respondent inside the Junior Wing of the school during the
relevant period, while the statement of the minor victim recorded
under Section 183 of the BNSS consistently identifies the
respondent and narrates the manner of commission of the offence.
It was argued that Trial Court erroneously relied upon the absence
of external injuries in the MLC and selectively appreciated the
CCTV footage, while ignoring other incriminating circumstances
supporting the prosecution case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 8 of 16

21. Learned Additional Solicitor General further contended
that the impugned order was passed at a premature stage when
the investigation was still in progress and crucial forensic
evidence, including the FSL report and examination of the CCTV
DVR, was awaited. It was submitted that the Trial Court also
failed to appreciate that the respondent had delayed the initial
investigation and that the suspicious non-functionality of several
CCTV cameras constituted a relevant circumstance which
required due consideration before grant of bail.
22. It was next submitted that the respondent had been
associated with the school for over three decades and, therefore,
enjoyed considerable influence over the school administration
and staff, many of whom are material witnesses in the present
case. According to the petitioners, there existed a genuine
apprehension that, if permitted to remain on bail, the respondent
may influence witnesses, interfere with the investigation, or
otherwise prejudice the fair conduct of the trial. It was also
argued that the learned Trial Court virtually conducted a mini
trial by undertaking a detailed appreciation of the evidence,
which is impermissible at the stage of consideration of bail.
23. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Delhi High Court
in Ms. N v. State &Anr., NC:2023: DHC:6253 submitting that
while considering an application for bail in offences under the
POCSO Act, the Court is required to keep in mind the object and
purpose of the special legislation, which is intended to safeguard
the interests of children at every stage of the criminal process. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 9 of 16

was contended that the Court must consider the existence of a
prima facie case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
severity of the punishment, the likelihood of the accused
influencing witnesses or obstructing the course of justice, and
other settled parameters governing the grant of bail. It was
further submitted that, in cases under the POCSO Act, the Court
is additionally required to consider factors such as the age of the
victim, the age difference between the victim and the accused,
the ferocity of the alleged offence, the relationship between the
parties, and their proximity of residence, all of which, according
to the petitioners, were overlooked by the Trial Court while
granting bail.
24. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Additional Solicitor
General and learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner
submitted that the impugned order suffers from misapplication of
the settled principles governing grant of bail, and therefore
deserves to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
25. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, on the other
hand, has denied all allegations and claims false implication. It is
argued that respondent is about 56 years of age and has served
the institution for more than thirty years and has an unblemished
service record without any previous criminal antecedents. His
duties were purely administrative in nature and consisted
primarily of overseeing entry and exit arrangements, maintaining
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 10 of 16

records and attending to office-related work. Further, it was
submitted that respondent had no teaching responsibilities and no
role in supervising children inside classrooms or in the basement
area.
26. It was further contended that the CCTV footage
demonstrates that respondent exited the Junior Wing premises at
about 08:37 AM and thereafter entered the Senior Wing of the
school at approximately 08:43 AM, where he remained present
until afternoon. On the strength of this material, it was argued
that respondent was not present at the alleged place of occurrence
during the relevant period and that the footage supports his plea
of innocence.
27. Further, it is argued that the medical examination report of
the victim and the findings recorded therein do not indicate any
fresh injuries or other signs which would ordinarily be expected
in a case involving the allegations made in the complaint. It is
also contended that the medical evidence does not conclusively
corroborate the prosecution version.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent, placed reliance upon
the decision of the Delhi High Court in Dharmander Singh @
Saheb v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine Del
1267 , in a POCSO case, wherein it was held that even if the bail
plea is raised before framing of charge, the court is not supposed
to form an opinion on the merits of the evidence and that it can
admit an accused to bail.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 11 of 16

ANALYSIS AND DECISION
29. I have heard the rival submissions and have considered the
facts taken note of by learned Additional Sessions Judge while
st
granting the bail. The respondent was arrested on 1 of May,
2016 on the very date of registration of FIR. Learned Additional
th
Sessions Judge granted bail to respondent on 7 of May, 2026
just after a week when the investigation was in full swing and at
a crucial stage. It appears that due consideration was not given to
the fact that the victim made a complaint on the date of incident
itself on 30.04.2026 about the pain in her private part due to
touching with finger by a person. The victim did not name the
respondent, as reflected from FIR. Later on victim identified the
respondent as offender. There is nothing on record at this stage
to indicate any motive for falsely implicating the respondent by
minor child or her parents. However, evidence about the
presence of the respondent from 8:13 am to 8:37 am on
30.04.2026 has been confirmed from CCTV footage.
30. Though it is true that while deciding the bail application,
the court is not required to go into the facts very minutely but at
the same time the court has to broadly examine the allegations
made by the prosecution and points of defence raised by the
accused. Thereafter, the court is entitled to weigh both the sides
in light of all facts and circumstances attending the alleged
offence including the safety of vulnerable victims. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account a very
important fact that in junior school where the present incident
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 12 of 16

took place, there were ten staff members out of which only two
officials were male i.e. one guard namely Gopal and the
respondent. Therefore, the child victim could not have made any
mistake in identifying the culprit. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge missed a very important fact that the victim is barely three
years old and such a small child cannot be equated with an adult
victim, who can narrate the facts in proper sequence with
accuracy of time. A child of such tender age may appear to be
incoherent and sometimes even illogical but that does not mean
that what a child is saying is incorrect. This is a case where
about three years old victim narrated the incident to her mother
without naming the respondent. Thereafter, she not only
identified the respondent but also identified the place where
incident took place. This evidence cannot be rejected at this
stage simply because of the reasons that respondent was seen
leaving the place at 8:37 am. Learned counsel for respondent has
drawn attention of this court to the medical legal report and
submits that the date and time of incident has been mentioned as
3:00 pm on 30.04.2026. I am of the opinion that this is not a
correct reading of this portion of medical report. This appears to
be the time of informing the incident by the child to her mother.
Further, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that as per
prosecution, the incident took place in presence of a lady teacher,
who is co-accused in the present case. It is argued that such
indecent act cannot be done in presence of a lady. I have already
stated that a three years old child may not speak about the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 13 of 16

incident in sequence. As the matter is still under investigation,
the Investigating Officer will investigate these facts but it was too
early in a day to release the respondent on bail on these points
ignoring the version of the victim.
31. During arguments, the Investigating Officer had informed
this court that nothing was found in the tissue paper. However
that does not strike off the version of victim and her mother.
Therefore, at this stage, it would not be correct to doubt the
victim. Refusal to give samples to doctor also cannot be taken to
give any benefit of bail to respondent at this stage when
investigation is still continuing and the facts are yet to be
crystallized.
32. The impugned order has missed the crux of the issue and
the issue is as to why a minor child of three years of age would
make such a complaint and would not only identify the
respondent as the offender but also point out the place of
occurrence.
33. I have perused the judgment Dharmander Singh @
Saheb v. State (supra) cited on behalf of respondent. Perusal of
the same would show that prosecutrix in the said case was not
only mature but also she was having good friendship with the
accused. Further, the bail was granted when investigation had
been completed and evidence of prosecutrix was being recorded.
Therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel is not
applicable to the case in hand because of the simple reasons that
victim here is only three years old and investigation is still on and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 14 of 16

points, which have been canvassed by the respondent before this
court and before learned Sessions Judge are still under
investigation.
34. It goes without saying that higher court should not
normally interfere in a matter where bail had been granted but if
the Trial Court has missed some extremely important factors in
an offence of grave nature, as has happened in this case, the High
Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. I would like to
refer to X Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 43 , wherein the Supreme Court of India was dealing
with an order granting bail under POCSO Act. It was argued
before the Supreme Court that there was no medical
corroboration of rape and the medico legal examination revealed
no injuries on the body of minor victim. The Supreme Court set
aside the order of grant of bail holding that High Court had failed
to take in account the nature and gravity of offence and the
statutory rigour of the provisions of the POCSO Act and
vulnerability of the victim.
35. Therefore, in view of above discussions and in exercise of
power under Section 528 of the BNSS Act 2023, the impugned
order is set aside to secure ends of justice.
36. Consequently the respondent is directed to surrender
before the jurisdictional Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO
Court) on 01.07.2026 at 2:00 pm.
37. Petitions are allowed accordingly.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 15 of 16

38. Misc. applications are also disposed of.
VINOD KUMAR, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 29, 2026/ dd
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:29.06.2026
19:03:56
CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 and CRL.M.C.3966\2026 Page 16 of 16