JUDGMENT ;

[Amit Sharma J.]

1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 71/2019, under Sections 376/377/328/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO').

2. The present case was registered on 17.02.2019, on the complaint of the prosecutrix, wherein it was alleged that the prosecutrix, an eight-year-old minor, was sexually assaulted by the applicant on various occasions.

3. The facts of the present case, as stated in the status report, authored by Inspector Sanjay Neolia, SHO, P.S. New Ashok Nagar, dated 26.08.2022, are as under:

"I. That the brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.19, DD No 19A regarding sexual assault with minor girl was received in Police Station, on which SI Seema Bhati reached at spot i.e H.No. B- 1/302, Gaii No. 1, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi where victim along with her parents met her. Medical examination of victim was conducted at LBS Hospital on 17.2.19 vide MLC No. 75/19. Statement of victim was recorded in which victim stated that a person namely Rohit (petitioner), who was also residing at the same building on first floor. When victim had gone to first floor to play then petitioner called her and he put his penis in her mouth and forced her to suck and left her only when she started weeping. One day petitioner also gave her Rasna to drink then she slept there (in the room of petitioner). Petitioner used to kiss her oil lips and also threatened the victim that if she narrates the incident to anyone then he will kill her parents. Thereafter, a case u/s 376/377/328/506 IPC & 6 Pocso Act was registered on the statement of victim and investigation was taken up."

4. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376/377/328/506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecutrix and her parents, with respect to the number of times the alleged incident took place, and no specific details of the alleged incident have been stated by them in either the MLC, FIR or during their Chief and Cross-examination, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. He further states that the prosecutrix and her mother had refused to undergo internal medical examination, therefore, there is no medical evidence on record to support their allegation.

6. The learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the applicant has clean antecedents and has been in custody since 18.02.2019. He had earlier been granted interim bail by this Court, which was not misused by him. It was further urged that the trial is likely to take a long time and this should be considered for grant of bail.

7. Furthermore, it is averred by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was a financial dispute between the applicant and the father of the prosecutrix due to which he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He relies upon the CDR filed alongwith the supplementary chargesheet to show that numerous calls were exchanged between the father of the prosecutrix and the applicant.

8. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that no case under Section 377 of the IPC is made out against the applicant, therefore, he shall be granted bail. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Mullah Muzib (Criminal Leave Petition No. 62/2015, dated 09.02.2015

Shiv Chander v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., (2021) 01 DEL CK 0254.

9. Further, the learned counsel for the Applicant pressed on the submission that