$~J-1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Delivered on: 12.01.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 4133/2025

SONU HALDER .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Madhav Suri and Ms. Akanksha

Singh, Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr.AjayVikram Singh,APPfor State

with SI Reena Kumari and SI Ritu,

PS. Budh Vihar.

Mr. Abhishek Shrivastava, Adv. for

victim.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

1. The present petition has been filed seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 495/2023 under Sections 344/363/366/376/506/34 IPC and

Sections 6/21 of the POCSOAct, registered at Police Station Budh Vihar.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered by the victim’s mother, wherein she stated that her daughter i.e. the victim, was kidnapped on 26.11.2023. She was later recovered from Murshidabad, West Bengal, and after being brought back, the victim was medically examined. Thereafter, the victim was produced before the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, where her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

3. As per the statement made by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the accused, who is the brother of the victim’s friend, allegedly took the victim to West Bengal against her will and had a forceful sexual encounter with her, as a result of which the victim became two months pregnant. It is further stated that the accused solemnized a marriage with the victim.

4. Initially, FIR No. 495/2023 was registered under Section 363 IPC. However, after the victim’s statement, Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added. During the course of investigation, Sections 344/366/506/34 IPC, Section 21 of the POCSO Act, and Section 10 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act were also invoked. The accused was arrested on 07.02.2024.

5. Mr. Madhav Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Petitioner/accused and the victim were in a romantic relationship when both were minors. He states that at the time of arrest, the accused was of 19 years, whereas the victim was 17 years of age.

6. He contends that the accused had solemnized marriage with the victim, with the knowledge and consent of both families. He further asserts that the victim cohabited with the accused in Kolkata by mutual consent, and this fact was known to her parents.

7. He submits that pursuant to the FIR lodged bythe victim’s mother, the victim was brought back from Kolkata by the Delhi Police, and thereafter the petitioner was arrested.

8. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2024 and that the trial is progressing at a tardypace.

9. Elaborating further, he submits that the victim was partly examined- in-chief on 30.11.2024, but her further examination could not be conducted despite several opportunities.

10. He has drawn the Court’s attention to various orders of the learned trial court to demonstrate that the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner.

11. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned APP for the State, has argued on lines of Status Report.

12. He submits that the accused committed the entire act with the assistance of his parents, who have also been charged in the case.

13. He submits that the offences alleged against the accused are grave in nature and that the examination-in-chief of the victim remains incomplete.

14. I have heard Mr. Madhav Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the victim, and have perused the record.

15. A perusal of the chargesheet reveals that earlier also the victim had gone missing, which led to the registration of another FIR No.365/2023 under Section 363 IPC at P.S. Kanjhawala on 19.09.2023. However, the victim had returned to her home on 25.09.2023 safely. After returning, she informed that she was at her friend Anupama’s house.

16. The chargesheet further reveals that the victim had