$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 13.11.2025

Date of Decision: 22.11.2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 582/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4162/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4163/2025

RAJESH PUNDHIR @ UMESH PUNDHIR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Bharat Bagga and Mr. Saurav Rana, Advs.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with Ms. Upasna Bakshi, Adv. with SI Pinki and SI Rachna

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

J U D G M E N T

%

1. Through the present petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732), the petitioner seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 408/2023 registered under Sections 354A of the Indian Penal code, 18603 and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124 at P.S. Civil Lines.

2. The prosecution’s case, as emerging from the FIR, may pithily be put thus: the victim/complainant, a first-year student at a college in Delhi, was en route to her college on 15.09.2023. Having travelled by bus from GTB Nagar to ISBT, she proceeded towards Gate No. 6 of the Kashmere Gate Metro Station when a man allegedly approached her, pulled her aside from the road, and offered to drop her to the college in his auto without charge. It is alleged that, during the journey, on a secluded stretch, the auto driver slowed down the vehicle and, while turning towards her, touched her inappropriately on her left thigh, chest, and abdomen. The victim, frightened by the incident, managed to get down from the auto near the college. She thereafter reported the matter to the college authorities, consequent to which her medical examination was concluded.

3. During the investigation, the CCTV camera installed at the incident site were checked, however, no clue could be ascertained from the footage.

4. Subsequently, on 07.12.2023, acting upon secret information that the auto driver involved in the incident would be present at Kashmere Gate, the Investigating Officer, accompanied by police staff and the victim, reached the said location. From a distance, the victim identified the petitioner through a hand gesture as the person who had molested her on 15.09.2023. The petitioner was apprehended, brought to P.S. Civil Lines, and arrested at the instance of the victim.

5. Further, notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the registered owner of auto rickshaw No. DL1RZ2908, who disclosed that the said vehicle had been driven by the petitioner from 20.07.2023 to 20.09.2023. The vehicle was seized and deposited in the malkhana. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, on 27.02.2024, charges were duly framed against the petitioner under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act by the Court of the learned Trial Court.

7. The petitioner’s petition seeking regular bail was subsequently dismissed by the learned ASJ, FTSC (POCSO)-02, Central, THC, Delhi vide order dated 03.12.2024. The learned Court observed that although the site plan had not been proved, no CCTV footage or public statements had been collected and certain discrepancies had appeared in the victim’s testimony, a detailed evaluation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. Taking note of the heightened threshold under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the petitioner’s multiple criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of tampering with the victim who is a young student residing alone in Delhi, the petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

8. Mr. Bharat Bagga, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the learned Trial Court, while rejecting the bail application vide order dated 03.12.2024, had itself noted that the site plan had not been proved, no CCTV footage or public witness statements had been collected, and certain discrepancies had emerged in the testim