Ramdutt @ Ramu vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010194992026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1743/2026
RAMDUTT @ RAMU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hari Krishan, Advocate.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with
WSI Surbhi.




CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 06/2026 of
PS Punjabi Bagh for offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS and Section 6
POCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case, as culled out of the status report, is as follows.
The subject FIR was registered on the basis of statement of prosecutrix, aged
16 years, in which she alleged that her neighbour, the present
accused/applicant aged about 37 years raped her repeatedly over a period of
time.

BAIL APPLN. 1743/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.16 17:49:20 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:01:45

3. On behalf of accused/applicant, it is argued by learned counsel that
before the trial court, the prosecutrix turned completely hostile to
prosecution case and stated that nothing at all happened with her, therefore,
the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail.

4. Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on the ground that
during investigation, statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under
Section 183 BNSS in which she narrated the rape allegations.

5. It is not a case where the prosecutrix while deposing before the trial
court would say that she was involved in a consensual relationship, which
argument could be analysed keeping in mind her age. Here is a case in
which the prosecutrix during her testimony flatly denied the alleged incident
in entirety. Not only this, the prosecutrix even deposed before the trial court
that she had never appeared before any judge for recording her statement,
which is blatant lie, because according to prosecution, statement of
prosecutrix on oath was duly recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the
concerned magistrate.

6. Despite such apparent perjury, the IO opted not to take any action
against the prosecutrix. On this issue, it was on an earlier date submitted by
learned prosecutor that Section 22(2) of POCSO Act protects the
prosecutrix, but the State was contemplating legal action against her,

BAIL APPLN. 1743/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.16 17:49:09 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:01:45

possibly under Section 217 BNS. But even that action has not been taken.

7. The object of criminal trial is to arrive at the truth and not to ensure
conviction only. The court arrives at the truth on the basis of evidence
collected by the investigator and adduced by the prosecutor. Often, the
criminal justice machinery is criticised for low rate of convictions,
especially in cases under the POCSO Act. The investigating and the
prosecuting arms of the criminal justice system always blame the witnesses
for having turned hostile during trials, leading to the acquittals. But in none
of those cases any action is ever taken by them. Even in a case of present
nature, where during trial the prosecutrix not just deposed hostile to
prosecution case, but even went to the extent of stating before the trial court
that she never appeared before the concerned magistrate for recording of her
statement purportedly under Section 183 BNSS, no action has been taken
against her by prosecution side.

8. In the present case, it is not just the testimony of the prosecutrix being
a blatant lie and hostile to prosecution, but also the total disinterest exhibited
by prosecution to take appropriate action, which at this stage would convey
to this court that the entire prosecution case was prima facie false and the
accused/applicant suffered illegal confinement in custody. However, I must
also add a cautious rider that the above observations have been recorded
only while analysing the rival case for grant or denial of bail. These
observations shall not be read by the trial court to the prejudice of the

BAIL APPLN. 1743/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages

GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af39
62c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4
0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.16 17:48:58 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:01:45

prosecution side. The trial court shall independently evaluate the material on
record and shall arrive at final decision at conclusion of trial.

9. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail
application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on
bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.

10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.



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=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.16 17:48:44 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
ry
OCTOBER 16, 2026/


BAIL APPLN. 1743/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.10.2026
18:01:45