Faith Healer’s Dark Ritual: Delhi HC Slams Door on Bail for Maulvi Accused of Raping Minor

In a stark reminder of how blind faith can mask predation, the Delhi High Court has denied regular bail to Mohd Mubarak , a self-proclaimed maulvi accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl under the pretense of exorcising an "evil spirit" or jinn . Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma ruled on April 29, 2026, emphasizing the gravity of the charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act , despite the accused's over six years in custody since 2019.

A Family's Desperate Quest Turns Nightmare

The ordeal began in October 2019 when a PCR call alerted Police Station Prem Nagar to a sexual assault. The victim, born on November 24, 2002 (confirmed via school records, making her a minor at the time), had suffered chronic illness for years. Modern medicine failing, her family turned to faith healers performing jhad-phoonk . On a friend's advice, her father took her to Mubarak in Mubarakpur on October 8.

Allegedly, during the "treatment," Mubarak posed inappropriate questions, then visited their home that evening, insisting on private sessions. He claimed a jinn possessed her, removable only through "obscene acts" as the spirit was "impure." Handing her a bedsheet, he coerced her to remove her undergarments and assaulted her. Terrified, she confided in her mother the next day, leading to an FIR, medical exam at SGM Hospital Mangolpuri , and Mubarak's arrest on October 10, 2019.

Investigation revealed repeated assaults, upgrading charges to Section 6 POCSO. Her Section 164 CrPC statement corroborated the ordeal; DNA profiling was conducted, chargesheet filed, and trial advanced with 12 of 18 prosecution witnesses examined, including the victim (PW-1) and parents (PW-2, PW-3).

Defense Plea: Time Served Trumps Trial Delay?

Mubarak's counsel, led by Mr. Sumit Sharma, argued prolonged incarceration—over six years—violates rights to liberty and speedy trial. With investigation complete, chargesheet filed, forensics on record, and key witnesses cross-examined, they claimed no tampering risk. They highlighted "discrepancies" in testimonies and an "unreliable" victim account, faulting the trial court for ignoring these in rejecting prior bail.

Prosecution's Stand: No Mercy for Predatory Exploitation

Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar countered fiercely. The maulvi exploited the family's vulnerability and blind faith, isolating the ill minor for repeated assaults. With trial nearing end, granting bail in such grave POCSO offences was untenable, they urged.

Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Prima Facie Evil Prevails

Justice Sharma meticulously reviewed the record, prima facie finding Mubarak "took undue advantage of the vulnerable physical and mental condition of the prosecutrix as well as the blind faith reposed in him by her family." She refused to dissect evidence minutiae at bail stage, citing State of Karnataka v. Sai Darshan (2025 INSC 979) : credibility, contradictions, and probative value are for trial post-cross-examination.

Echoing X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539) , the court noted reluctance to grant bail in rape cases once prosecution evidence advances. Trial proximity sealed the fate—no grounds for release.

Key Observations

"The material placed on record prima facie reflects that the applicant took undue advantage of the vulnerable physical and mental condition of the prosecutrix as well as the blind faith reposed in him by her family." (Para 8)

"At the stage of consideration of bail, the evidence is not required to be minutely sifted or appreciated as would be done during trial." (Para 10, citing Supreme Court)

"Ordinarily, in offences like rape... once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining the witnesses, the Courts should be loath in entertaining bail applications of the accused." (Para 11, citing Supreme Court)

"In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material placed on record, and the stage of the trial, this Court does not find any ground for grant of bail to the applicant." (Para 12)

Bail Booted, But Trial Urged to Accelerate

The application stands dismissed . Yet, acknowledging six-plus years in jail, the court directed the trial court to "make all endeavours to expedite the trial." This ruling underscores judicial caution in POCSO matters: exploitation via superstition draws no leniency, especially mid-trial. It signals to future cases—long custody alone won't unlock gates in heinous child assault probes, prioritizing victim protection and swift justice.