Gayassudin vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09.04.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8189/2026
GAYASSUDIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hemraj Murmu, Mr. Arun Kumar
Bharti and Mr. Tanay Jareda,
Advocate

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with IO/SI Shakuntala, PS Jamia
Nagar


CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 167/2025 of
PS Jamia Nagar for offence under Section 69/123/89/79/351/115(2) of BNS
and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. In furtherance of last order, testimony of the prosecutrix was recorded
by the trial court and copy of the same has been filed by prosecution with
the status report. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and
learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Shakuntala. I have also heard the
prosecutrix ( who herself is a law student ) as well as her counsel.

3. Broadly speaking, the case set up by the prosecution is that despite

BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.09 05:11:50 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:09.04.2026
17:23:24
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified


specific and detailed allegations of rape, followed by pregnancy and
abortion, the prosecutrix after attaining the age of majority opted to get
married with the accused/applicant.

3.1 The FIR was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, alleging
that at the age of 16 years, the prosecutrix developed friendship with the
accused/applicant over Facebook and on his request, she accompanied him
to a flat of his friend. The accused/applicant specifically assured that they
would just sit and talk and nothing wrong would be done to her. Once
inside the flat, the accused/applicant served her a soft drink and chicken,
which she consumed and gradually lost consciousness. In the evening, on
regaining consciousness, she found herself completely naked and also found
the accused/applicant naked lying by her side; there were blood stains on the
mattress and she felt pain in her private parts, so she started crying. At that
stage, the accused/applicant assured to get married with her after she
attained age of 18 years. Thereafter, the accused/applicant went out to bring
some pain killer and gave the same to her and at about 08:30 pm both of
them left the flat and she returned home. Thereafter, again the
accused/applicant took her to his home when none else was there and
indulged in sex with her. Even thereafter, the accused/applicant, falsely
assuring her to get married, repeatedly took her to a hotel and indulged in
sexual relations. During the said period, she got pregnant twice and the
accused/applicant got the pregnancy terminated. But after she attained the
age of 18 years, the accused/applicant refused to get married with her and
even started beating her up. It is with that background, the prosecutrix

BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.09 05:11:39 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:09.04.2026
17:23:24
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified


lodged a complaint with the police which was registered.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that subsequent to
registration of the case, the accused/applicant got married with the
prosecutrix, so it is a fit case to release him on bail. In this regard, learned
counsel for accused/applicant also places reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix recorded by the trial court and submits that the prosecutrix never
had any grievance with the accused/applicant and that she was not even
aware about the contents of her complaint, because the same was drafted by
her counsel in Saket Courts.

5. The prosecutrix and her counsel also support the accused/applicant.
The prosecutrix submits that the contents of the FIR are false and that she
was not aware about the same, because she did not read the FIR. However,
prosecutrix also states that initially her counsel had drafted the complaint in
English, but on her insistence, he translated the same into Hindi and she
submitted the same before the Local Police.

6. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Shakuntala strongly opposes
the bail application, disclosing that the prosecutrix is not an illiterate person
but is a student of law, so it cannot be believed that she was not aware about
contents of her complaint. It is also submitted by learned APP for State that
this is a fit case in which the police needs to take action against the
prosecutrix in view of her testimony before the trial court. It is submitted by
learned APP for State that granting bail in such cases would encourage such

BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.09 05:11:29 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:09.04.2026
17:23:24
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified


lawlessness with impunity.

7. To begin with, it would be significant to note that the prosecutrix is a
law student and prima facie , I find it difficult to believe that she is so
gullible that she would simply sign such a serious complaint and give it to
the local police, that too after getting the same translated from English to
Hindi without reading its contents. Not only this, the prosecutrix today also
before this Court does not divulge the identity of the advocate, who
allegedly drafted that complaint. As stated by her before the trial court, the
prosecutrix even paid fees to that advocate. From testimony of prosecutrix, I
find credence in the argument of the prosecution that prima facie , her
testimony appears to be false, though on this aspect, the trial court shall take
an independent view and this observation is being made only to deal with
the argument advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant and the
prosecutrix.

8. Further, the IO had also got recorded statement of the prosecutrix
before the magistrate concerned under Section 164 CrPC, in which she
reiterated the abovementioned allegations levelled by her in the FIR. In her
testimony, the prosecutrix stated that the concerned magistrate had asked her
if she was telling truth or not, but she did not say that the allegations were
false, because her Advocate had warned her that if she did not reiterate the
contents of her complaint, she would have to go to jail. Such statement
coming from a person not an illiterate but a law student is difficult to
believe.

BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.09 05:11:18 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:09.04.2026
17:23:24
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified



9. Of course, as per documents on record, on 12.02.2026, the
accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix through Nikahnama . But
that does not absolve the accused/applicant of his repeated acts of rape when
the prosecutrix was minor in age. As mentioned above, at the time of
commencement of sexual relations between the accused/applicant and the
prosecutrix, the latter was aged only 16 years and when she attained the age
of majority in the year 2024, the accused/applicant refused to get married
with her, which led to the present FIR. It is only after the accused/applicant
was arrested and was in jail that he agreed to get married with her, so by
way of order dated 02.02.2026 of this Court, his interim bail application was
disposed of directing that he be taken in custody before the Qazi , who
performed the marriage ceremony. Clearly, the marriage was performed by
the accused/applicant simply as a ploy to get himself bailed out, having
committed repeated rapes of a minor girl, as alleged by her in the FIR and
statement under Section 164 CrPC.

10. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to
release the accused/applicant on bail. The bail application is dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being
conveyed to the accused/applicant immediately.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.09 05:10:57 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA



GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
as
APRIL 9, 2026/

BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:09.04.2026
17:23:24