SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
Ravinder Soni - Petitioner
Versus
State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2283/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22041/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1473/2025
Decided on : 14-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Mr. Puneet Singh and Mr. Chetan, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, Appellant for State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. for State SI Anjali Rathi, DIU/C and SI Neelsee, P.S. Nabi Karim Mr. Samarth Bhutani, Adv. for victim

The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of bail applications in sexual offences involving minors, balancing the accused's rights with the victim's protection.

Headnote:The petitioner, seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was accused of serious sexual offences against a minor, asserting false implication and delay in FIR. The court emphasized the seriousness of such allegations and the paramount interest of the victim in considering bail applications. Denying bail, the court stated that there exists a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner filed for bail under serious sexual offence allegations. (Para 1)

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023[Hereinafter “BNSS ”] seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 154/2025, registered under Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023, [Hereinafter “BNSS ”], and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 [Hereinafter “ POCSO ”] at Police Station Nabi Karim.

2. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the FIR, is that on 06.02.2025, the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix/victim. In her statement, she alleged that on 02.02.2025, she had gone to the market along with her sister, where at a shop, the petitioner allegedly inserted his finger in her anal region, touched her inappropriately from behind, and made obscene gestures. Subsequently, on 06.02.2025, the victim, along with her mother, located and identified the petitioner, whereupon she narrated the incident to her mother. The mother of the victim/prosecutrix is stated to have slapped the petitioner and called the PCR. Thereafter, an FIR was registered and the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Shruti Dubey. The petitioner/accused was taken into custody on 07.02.2025.

3. On 07.02.2025, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digital Court-04(NI Act), Central, Delhi under Section 183 of BNSS .

4. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application seeking regular bail before the learned ASJ, FTSC (POCSO)-02, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in SC No. 229/2025. The petitioner’s first and second regular bail applications were dismissed vide orders dated 02.05.2025 and 06.05.2025, respectively. Subsequently, the third bail application was also dismissed by the learned ASJ, FTSC (POCSO)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, wherein the following order dated 20.05.2025 was passed:

“In the present case, the allegations against the accused are very serious in nature. Bail of the accused on merits has already been dismissed twice. The decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for accused is distinguished on the ground that present case pertains to POCSO Act and Ld. JMFC was satisfied with the reasons and grounds of arrest of the accused at the time of first production of accused before the Court. Moreover, question regarding necessity of furnishing ground of arrest in all cases is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Thus, in view of the above stated reasons, considering the gravity of offence, seriousness of the allegations levelled against the applicant/accused and strong opposition by the victim, this court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant/accused on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed and disposed off.

Needless to say, the above mentioned observations are based solely on the facts as alleged, and brought forth at this juncture, and are not finding on merits, and would also have no bearing on the merits of the case.”

5. Chargesheet has already been filed in the aforenoted FIR, however, the examination of the prosecutrix is still pending.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing for bail, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as a retaliatory measure for his prior whistleblowing against local police officials of PS Nabi Karim.

7. It is urged that there is an inordinate delay of five days in lodging the FIR, undermining its credibility.

8. It is contended that the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of Section 4 POCSO Act, and at most, may attract Section 7 or 8 of POCSO Act.

9. The CCTV footage placed on record, Mr. Anubhav Tyagi states, establishes the petitioner’s presence at home at the relevant time, while no footage from the place of occurrence h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top