Full Judgment Text
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 14.01.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 & CRL MA 973/2026
VICKY KASHYAP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla,
Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Sanskar
Krishnan and Mr. Kushagra
Sinha, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State with Ms.
Amisha Dahiya, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks grant of
regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 582/2021,
registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, for the commission of
offence punishable under Section 342/376(2)(i)(n)/354(C)/505-II of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „ IPC ‟] and Section 6/12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter
„ POCSO Act ‟].
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on
24.09.2021, a PCR call vide DD No. 53A was received at P.S. Moti
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
Nagar, Delhi, regarding the incident of molestation of a child. On
reaching the spot, the police officials found that the matter pertained
to sexual assault of a minor girl. A counsellor was called and the
prosecutrix was medically examined vide MLC No. 7469/21. The
prosecutrix submitted a written complaint alleging that on the same
day at about 9:00 AM, the present accused Vicky Kashyap had taken
her to a room on the pretext of talking and had committed sexual
assault upon her. The incident came to light when the mother of the
prosecutrix searched for her and reached the accused‟s house. On the
basis of the complaint, counselling report, and MLC, an FIR was
registered for offence under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of
the POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet
was filed, and the matter is presently pending trial.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant
has been falsely implicated and has been in judicial custody since
27.09.2021, despite the investigation having been completed and the
material public witnesses having already been examined. It is argued
that only formal witnesses remain, and therefore there is no
possibility of the applicant influencing the prosecution evidence. The
learned counsel contends that the case rests solely on the testimony of
the prosecutrix, which suffers from material contradictions,
inconsistencies, and subsequent improvements, rendering it
unreliable and suggestive of tutoring, particularly by the mother of
the prosecutrix. It is further urged that there was an unexplained
delay of several hours in making the PCR call and in lodging the FIR,
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
which casts doubt on the prosecution version. The medical evidence
is stated to be inconclusive, as the MLC records no injuries or signs
consistent with sexual assault, and the FSL report is silent with
regard to male DNA. It is also argued that although the prosecutrix
alleged that accused had videographed the alleged sexual acts, no
such material has been found despite the mobile phone of accused
having been sent to FSL. He further submits that the mother of the
prosecutrix was in a consensual physical relationship with the
accused and that the accused had been financially assisting her
family, which relationship was resented by the prosecutrix, leading to
a false implication of the accused. The learned counsel also contends
that the incident is alleged to have occurred during the Covid-19
period in the year 2021, when movement of people was restricted and
social interaction was minimal, and therefore, according to him, the
likelihood of the alleged offence having been committed in the
manner projected by the prosecution is doubtful. Thus, it is prayed
that the present applicant be released on regular bail.
4. The learned APP for the State strongly opposes the bail
application and submits that the allegations pertain to a grave sexual
offence against a minor. It is argued that the prosecutrix has
consistently supported the prosecution case in her complaint, in her
statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., and also in her
testimony before the learned Trial Court, which lends strong prima-
facie credibility to her version. The learned APP contends that in
cases involving child sexual abuse, the testimony of the victim, if
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
consistent and trustworthy, is sufficient at this stage to deny bail, and
issues relating to delay, medical opinion, or alleged contradictions are
matters for trial. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the
statutory scheme of the POCSO Act, and the stage of trial, the
learned APP prays that the bail application be dismissed.
5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the applicant and learned APP for the State, and has perused
material on record.
6. The allegations against the present applicant/accused, in brief,
are that he is alleged to have taken the minor prosecutrix away from
her home on a false pretext, confined her at a place, and forcefully
established physical relations with her. It is alleged that the
prosecutrix was subsequently traced and rescued by her family
members, and that the applicant left the spot thereafter.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is
of the opinion that the mere fact that the alleged incident occurred
during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic cannot, by itself, be a
ground to presume that the offence could not have been committed or
to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix. This Court also takes
note of the undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was of tender age,
being about 12-13 years at the relevant time. She has consistently
supported the prosecution case and has clearly described the manner
in which the incident of sexual assault took place in her statement to
the police, her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the learned Magistrate, as well as in her testimony before the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
learned Trial Court.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant sought to contend that
the mother of the victim was in a consensual relationship with the
applicant, which the prosecutrix allegedly did not approve of, and
that the applicant has therefore been falsely implicated. In the opinion
of this Court, such a contention does not provide any ground to doubt
the testimony of the victim. Even assuming, for the sake of argument,
that the mother of the victim had a consensual relationship with the
accused, the same cannot lead to an inference that the applicant could
not have committed sexual assault upon the minor child. The
prosecutrix has categorically stated that the accused, who was
familiar to her and known to her family, had called her to his room on
a false pretext and had forcefully established physical relations with
her.
9. In fact, the admitted familiarity of the accused with the
prosecutrix and her family lends support to the prosecution version,
at this stage , that the prosecutrix trusted the accused and therefore
accompanied him. The prosecutrix has repeatedly stated that she
used to address the accused as „ chacha ‟, as he was known to her
mother, which further indicates the position of trust that the accused
occupied.
10. This Court also finds merit in the observation of the learned
Trial Court that although a detailed analysis of the testimony of the
victim is not warranted at the stage of consideration of bail, a prima
facie assessment of the same is permissible, particularly when the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
testimony has already been recorded and cross-examination has been
conducted.
11. Moreover, the learned counsel for the applicant has himself
relied upon the statements and testimony of the prosecutrix and other
witnesses to argued that the said statements suffer from
inconsistencies.
12. This Court has perused the statement of the prosecutrix, which
further reveals that she was about 12 years of age at the time of the
incident. She has alleged that the accused had repeatedly committed
aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her, videographed the acts
on his mobile phone, confined her, and threatened her with dire
consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
13. Ms. „S-1‟, the mother of the prosecutrix, in her testimony has
stated that when her daughter did not return home on the date of
incident, she was informed that the present applicant Vicky had taken
the prosecutrix on his scooty. She had traced him to his factory at
Basai Darapur, where he initially denied any knowledge of the
prosecutrix but later disclosed that she had been kept in a room. The
prosecutrix was found confined in the washroom, rescued, and upon
being freed, she had disclosed that the accused had taken her on a
false pretext and had forcefully established physical relations with
her. The accused had fled from the spot, after which the prosecutrix
was taken home and the police was informed, leading to her medical
examination.
14. The record also discloses that the bua of the victim has
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
corroborated the prosecution case and has deposed before the learned
Trial Court that when she, along with the mother of the prosecutrix,
had gone in search of the prosecutrix, she was found at the room of
the accused, and the accused had fled from the spot.
15. The submission made on behalf of the applicant that the
mother of the prosecutrix had visited the accused in jail or had
allegedly accepted money from him does not, in the opinion of this
Court, at this stage, dilute the gravity of the offence. The allegations
are of sexual assault upon a minor, and the bail application has to be
considered on the basis of the nature of the allegations, the material
on record, and the consistent statements of the prosecutrix recorded
before the police, the learned Magistrate, and the Court. The
prosecutrix has consistently stated that the accused, whom she trusted
and addressed as “ Chacha ”, a relationship akin to a father figure,
subjected her to repeated sexual assault. The alleged conduct of the
prosecutrix‟s mother, even if assumed to be correct, cannot be a sole
ground to doubt the version of a minor victim. The offence
complained of is against a child, and its seriousness cannot be
assessed through the conduct of a third party. Where a minor has
herself come forward and consistently disclosed abuse, the Court is
duty-bound to accord due weight to her version while considering the
prayer for bail.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, considering the nature and
gravity of the allegations, the tender age of the prosecutrix, her
statements recorded before the police, the learned Magistrate and the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14
learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to
the applicant at this stage.
17. Accordingly, the present bail application alongwith pending
application is dismissed.
18. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
19. Before parting with the matter , this Court notes with concern
that the name of the prosecutrix has been mentioned in the status
report filed by the I.O. before this Court.
20. In view thereof, the DCP of the concerned area (having
jurisdiction over P.S. Moti Nagar) is directed to sensitise all SHOs
under his jurisdiction to strictly ensure that the name, parentage, or
address of a victim of sexual assault is not disclosed in any status
report or document filed before the Courts.
21. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi is also requested to
reiterate appropriate instructions to all SHOs and Investigating
Officers in this regard, in strict compliance with law.
22. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the DCP
concerned as well as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for
information and compliance.
23. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 14, 2026/ns
TS/TD
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:21.01.2026
19:24:14