$~3

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: December 15, 2025 + BAIL APPLN. 3835/2025, CRL.M.A. 29915/2025 &

CRL.M.A. 29916/2025

SURESH .....Applicant

Through: Mr. Sanjay Soni & Mr. A.

Raja R.S., Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,

APP for the State.

SI Suman, PS Sarita Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present bail application is filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 251/2024 dated 04.07.2024, registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar, for offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (‘IPC’)

2. Succinctly stated, FIR in the present case was registered pursuant to a complaint made by the minor victim. It is alleged that the applicant used to sell vegetables two streets away from the victim’s house and she would sometimes buy vegetables from him. It is alleged that one day when the victim went to the applicant’s cart to buy vegetables, the applicant told the victim to not pay for the vegetables and instead go out with him. He told the victim that he would pay her ₹500/- and make her have fun. It is alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid offer, the victim left the

spot in a hurry. It is alleged that a few days later when the victim went to the applicant’s cart again to buy vegetables, the applicant told her that he knows where she lives and he would come to her house with food and drinks. It is alleged that the applicant told the victim to not inform anyone about the same or she would only be scolded and the victim in fear of the same did not inform anyone about what the applicant said to her.

3. It is alleged that thereafter, one day, the applicant came to the victim’s house when she was alone, gave her ₹500/- and raped her. It is alleged that the applicant told the victim to not inform anyone about the incident or she would be scolded herself. It is alleged that subsequently, the applicant once again came to the victim’s house and raped her. It is alleged that thereafter, the victim’s health started deteriorating and when her mother took her to the hospital it was found that she is pregnant.

The victim was 15 years old at the time of alleged incident.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5. He submits that the victim refused medical examination and there is no scientific or medical evidence implicating the applicant. He submits that the DNA profile of the retained product of conception could not be generated due to degradation/inhibition of the sample.

6. He submits that the entire case of the prosecution substantially rests upon the statement of the victim, which is contradictory in nature. He submits that as per the statement of the victim the alleged offence took place in June 2024, and the duration between the alleged offence and the MLC dated 05.08.2024 is only four weeks while the MLC indicates that the victim was more than eight weeks pregnant. He submits that the same indicates that the victim was impregnated at an earlier date by some other person.

7. He submits that the parents of the victim had taken various small loans from the applicant and haven’t paid the same back to the applicant. He submits that the parents of the victim threatened the applicant to waive of the loans before the present complaint was filed. He submits that the possibility of the victim being tutored by her parents cannot be ruled out.

8. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the applicant. He submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature. He submits that the heinous acts of the applicant have led to the minor victim getting pregnant.

9. He submits that the age of the victim has been verified from her school records and she was 15 years old a