Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 138
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TOHEED KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-178/2025
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Haider Khan & Mr. Devansh Sehgal
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the victim's consent and age are critical in determining bail eligibility.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 483 and 528 - Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6 and 21 - Bail application filed by the Applicant seeking bail in FIR No. 500/2024, alleging false implication by the victim's relative for property motives - The victim, aged 20 at marriage, stated no objection to bail and resides with the Applicant. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 14)
(B) Bail - The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception was reiterated, emphasizing the Applicant's lack of influence over witnesses and readiness to comply with court conditions. (Paras 6, 7, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Applicant was arrested under allegations of kidnapping and sexual offences against a victim who was married to him under Muslim law. The victim's age and consent were central to the bail application.
Findings of Court:
The Applicant was granted bail with conditions, noting the completion of investigation and absence of custodial interrogation necessity.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of the marriage and the victim's consent in the context of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the victim's statements and the legal presumption of innocence, alongside the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons against it.
Result: Bail granted.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 528 of the Act, has been filed on behalf of the Applicant seeking bail in FIR No. 500/2024, under Sections 137(2)/64 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6/21 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
2. It is submitted that Petitioner had applied for Regular Bail under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge vide order dated 24.12.2024. It is submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated by the Bua of the victim on account of her greed for property and money. The FIR has been registered with the sole intent to extort money and the present FIR is gross misuse of process of law.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.08.2024, the victim had gone missing and an FIR was got registered on 02.10.2024 on the complaint of the mother of the victim. In fact, the real story is that the Applicant and the Victim got married according to Muslim law on 04.07.2024 in the presence of the Complainant/ mother and other family members, with the consent of both the families. The Nikahnama has been verified and is part of the Charge-sheet. Aadhar Card of the Victim was verified, in which her date of birth is given as 14.02.2014 i.e. she was 20 years old at the time of her nikah and the Aadhar Card is also part of the Charge-sheet.
4. Further, as per Muslim Law the, a bride is eligible for marriage when she attains the age of puberty. After the Nikahnama, the Applicant and the Victim have resided together as husband and wife to the knowledge of both the families, especially the Complainant, who used to talk to the Victim on daily basis. Hence, the Complaint, on the basis of which the FIR in question has been registered, is false and fabricated.
5. According to the Applicant/Petitioner, statement of the Victim was recorded under Section 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, BAIL APPLN. 178/2025 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL wherein she stated that she has no grudge of any kind against the Applicant/ Petitioner and has no objection if the bail is granted and also that she no longer wanted to pursue the case against him. Furthermore, the Victim is residing with the family members of the Applicant as daughter-in-law.
6. Reliance has been placed upon decisions in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI 2012 (1) SCC 40 wherein it has been noted that the Bail is Rule and Jail is an exception.
7. The Applicant/ Petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.10.2024. The Charge-sheet has already been filed after completion of the investigation and the matter is pending trial. There is no likelihood of Applicant /Petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses in any manner and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. Thus, grant of regular bail is sought by the Applicant/ Petitioner.
8. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Prosecution wherein it is stated that on 02.10.2024, a PCR call vide DD No. 132A, dated 01.10.2024 was received in the Police Station from Jaida Bano, Bua of the Victim. Thereafter, a Complaint was made by Rehana, mother of the Victim, alleging that her daughter has been kidnapped on 10.08.2024. Consequently, FIR in question was registered.
9. The Victim was recovered from Bulandshahar, UP along with the Applicant. She was sent to AIIMS for medical examination and her statement under Section 180 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was recorded and offence under Section 64 B of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State BAIL APPLN. 178/2025 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL submitted that documents of proof of ag
