Facts
The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 02/2026 involving charges of sexual assault and criminal intimidation.
Source reference: no citationThe prosecutrix alleged that while she was a minor (approx. 14 years old) in 2022, the applicant established physical relations with her and continued to do so until July 2025
Source reference: p. 2, 5She further alleged that the applicant recorded private photographs and videos to blackmail her
Source reference: p. 2Investigation revealed the applicant used a fake Aadhaar card belonging to a woman named 'S' to book hotel rooms, forcing the prosecutrix to impersonate 'S'
Source reference: p. 4-5On 07.01.2026, an altercation occurred when the applicant allegedly refused to delete the media, threatened the prosecutrix with a knife, and slapped her
Source reference: p. 2The applicant was arrested on 08.01.2026
Source reference: p. 3The applicant argued the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was a result of a financial dispute
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the claims of a consensual relationship despite the prosecutrix being a minor at the time of the alleged offences.
Source reference: p.3, 52. Whether the gravity of the allegations, including the use of forged documents and criminal intimidation, warrants the continued judicial custody of the applicant pending trial.
Source reference: p. 5-7Law Applied
Sections 137(2), 64(2), 65, 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Source reference: p. 1Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
Source reference: p. 1in cases involving minors, the plea of "consent" is legally immaterial and does not absolve the accused of criminal liability for sexual offences
Source reference: p. 4, 5Reasoning
The court reasoned that since the prosecutrix was between 14 and 17 years of age during the incidents, her consent is irrelevant under the eyes of the law
Source reference: p. 5The court noted significant incriminating evidence, including the recovery of hotel records where the applicant allegedly used a fake Aadhaar card and forced the minor to forge signatures to bypass age restrictions
Source reference: p. 5-6The court highlighted that independent witnesses and statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS corroborated the incident of criminal intimidation involving a knife on 07.01.2026
Source reference: p. 7the court observed that the FSL report regarding the objectionable media on the applicant's phone is still awaited and the prosecutrix is yet to be examined by the Trial Court
Source reference: p. 6, 7Given the seriousness of the allegations of blackmailing and the systematic exploitation of a minor, the court found no grounds for bail
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the nature of the allegations and the evidence of forged identities and intimidation outweigh the applicant's plea for bail
The court dismissed the bail application (BAIL APPLN. 615/2026) while clarifying that this order does not constitute an opinion on the final merits of the case
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Ankit LakravsThe State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in