Delhi HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Gang Rape In Trafficking Case While Prosecutrix’s Trial Testimony Continues

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail in light of the seriousness of the allegations, the material on record and the stage of the trial.

The court held

The Court answered the bail question in the negative and held that no case for regular bail had been made out.

It also directed

It dismissed the petition.

01Facts

The petitioner sought regular bail under Sections 483 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 376D, 506, 342, 363, 109, 313 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4, 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act.

p. 1

The prosecution alleged that the minor prosecutrix had been kidnapped, trafficked and sexually assaulted multiple times by several persons, including the petitioner; she identified the petitioner in her statement before the Magistrate.

pp. 2–3

The trial was at the prosecution-evidence stage, and the prosecutrix’s examination was ongoing.

p. 3, 6

The petitioner had been in custody since 6 March 2025; the State also reported his involvement in two other cases.

p. 3, 4

The petitioner relied, among other matters, on alleged inconsistencies, disputed age-verification documents and the grant of bail to co-accused.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail in light of the seriousness of the allegations, the material on record and the stage of the trial.

pp. 4–6

ii.Whether bail should be granted while the trial had commenced and the prosecutrix’s examination was ongoing.

pp. 4–6

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 483 and 528 of the BNSS as the statutory basis for the bail application, alongside the charged provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act.

p. 1

Relying on X v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, it noted that courts should ordinarily be reluctant to entertain bail applications in serious offences once trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses are being examined; release may be justified where trial delay, not attributable to the accused, infringes the right to speedy trial.

pp. 4–5

The Court also referred to State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, (2026) 8 SCC 223, including the principles that bail discretion requires consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence, the risk of witness intimidation or tampering, and the genuineness of the prosecution; neither filing of the charge-sheet nor the prospect of a prolonged trial, by itself, entitles an accused to bail.

pp. 5–6

Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 528 Section 183

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 506 Section 342 Section 363 Section 109 Section 313 Section 34

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 6 Section 21

04Reasoning

The Court considered the allegations to involve gang rape and trafficking, with repeated sexual assaults allegedly committed by multiple persons, including the petitioner.

p. 4

It noted that the prosecutrix’s examination was still in progress and applied the Supreme Court’s caution against granting bail during the trial of serious offences in a manner that could affect the ongoing proceedings.

pp. 4–6

In view of the case’s circumstances and the stage of the evidence, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not established a sufficient basis for release.

p. 6