* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10^th July, 2025 Pronounced on: 15^th July, 2025 + BAIL APPLN. 1433/2025 SUBENDU Through Parokar/Father Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Shiv Singh, R/o E-89/A, GRO, Kh. No. 56/2, Near Dev Property, Saudamani Public School, Jai Vihar, Bapraula, Delhi-110043 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan (through VC), Mr. Vikash Nain and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates.

versus

1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO, PS SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE ....Respondent No.1

2. X Complainant) ....Respondent No.2 Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State Mr. Prashant Vashist, Adv. for the Complainant along with the Complainant.

SI Surendra Das PS Safdarjung Enclave.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS BAIL APPLN. 1433/2025 Page 1 of 11

1. First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.‟) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Subendu, for grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 71/2024 dated 26.03.2024 under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‟) and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave.

2. The Applicant, Subendu aged about 25 years, is in judicial custody since 26.03.2024. He has filed five Bail Applications but all have been dismissed.

3. It is submitted that there were 16 Prosecution witnesses out of which three were the main witnesses and rest are all formal. These three main witnesses, namely, Prosecutrix, her father and an independent witness, Naveen Yadav, have already been examined and discharged.

4. The Statement of the Prosecutrix about she being taken to Dhawan BNB Guest House in the month of October/November in the year 2020 or of having sexual intercourse with her, are not proved by the Hotel records produced by the Prosecution. The Hotel records show their visits in 2023 and 2024 when the Prosecutrix was a full grown adult. Even if the Statement of the Prosecutrix is assumed to be true, it is explicit that the Prosecutrix willingly and knowingly entered into the sexual relationship with the Applicant. She does not allege any force or blackmailing on the basis of obscene videos by the Applicant.

5. The record of Hotel Paradise International also shows that the two never went to that Hotel before 2023/2024.

Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:VIKAS BAIL APPLN. 1433/2025 Page 2 of 11

6. On one hand, the Prosecutrix has deposed in her testimony that the Applicant used to commit sexual assault on her in Rose Garden, Hauz Khas between 2017-2020 but on the other hand, she has stated that from 2018, the Applicant used to commit sexual assault on her in his Tuition Centre at R.K. Puram. These two statements are not only contradictory but it is also perplexing that when the Applicant had a safe place, i.e. his exclusively occupied Tuition Centre for executing his alleged nefarious designs, why would he take the risk of public gaze at a public place such as Rose Garden, Hauz Khas.

7. The Statement of the Prosecutrix that the Applicant had committed sexual assault multiple times on her between 2017-2020 is uncorroborated.

Hence, the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act is not made out.

8. It is further contended that the testimony of the father of the Prosecutrix, is based on hearsay evidence and is not admissible. The independent witness, Naveen Yadav, who was the teacher in the Coaching Institute in KD Campus and got acquainted with the Prosecutrix only a few days before the lodging of FIR, has also given hearsay evidence. His testimony raises suspicion as to the veracity because it is hard to believe that the Prosecutrix by then a major girl would recount her plight to a stranger male and not to her mother, elder sister or father. Manifestly, this witness was roped in for bringing an independent witness as father‟s testimony may have been recorded as that of an interest