SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
VICKY KASHYAP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-1329/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arvind Kumar Shukla, Vivek Singh, Sanskar Krishnan, Kushagra Sinha
For the Respondents: Naresh Kumar Chahar, Amisha Dahiya

In child sexual abuse cases, consistent testimony of the victim is sufficient to deny bail at pre-trial stage; alleged contradictions, delay, or extraneous relationships do not weaken the case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 342, 376(2)(i)(n), 354

(C), 505(II) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 12 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161, 164 - Regular bail - Denial of bail - Considerations in child sexual abuse cases - Consistency of victim's testimony - Delay in lodging FIR - Medical evidence inconclusive - Relationship of accused with victim's mother - Bail application dismissed.

(B) Bail - Principles for grant of bail in cases of sexual assault on minor - Testimony of victim, if consistent and trustworthy, sufficient to deny bail at this stage - Mere fact of Covid-19 pandemic does not render offence improbable - Alleged relationship between accused and victim's mother does not dilute gravity of offence - Court duty-bound to accord weight to minor's version. (Paras 7-15)

Facts of the case:
On 24.09.2021, a PCR call was received regarding molestation of a child. The prosecutrix, aged about 12-13 years, alleged that the accused, known to her family as 'chacha', took her to a room on a false pretext and committed sexual assault. The mother of the prosecutrix traced her and rescued her from the accused's room. An FIR was registered under relevant sections of IPC and POCSO Act. The accused was arrested and has been in judicial custody since 27.09.2021. Charge-sheet was filed and trial is pending. The accused sought regular bail.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the prosecutrix consistently supported the prosecution case in her complaint, statements under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, and testimony before the trial court. The court rejected the argument that the alleged relationship between the accused and the victim's mother warranted disbelief, holding that the accused occupied a position of trust. The court found no ground to grant bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the need to protect minors. Additionally, the court directed the DCP to sensitize SHOs to avoid disclosing the victim's name in status reports.

Issues: The main issues were whether bail should be granted given the consistency of the victim's testimony, the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, inconclusive medical evidence, and the accused's contention of false implication due to a relationship with the victim's mother.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of sexual assault on a minor, the consistent testimony of the victim is a strong prima facie basis to deny bail; mere contradictions or delay are matters for trial; the conduct of a third party (victim's mother) does not undermine the minor's version; the court is duty-bound to accord due weight to the victim's consistent disclosure of abuse.

Result: Bail application dismissed. Directions issued for protection of victim's identity in court records.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • sexual offences
      • aggravated penetrative sexual assault (Para 1, 2, 12)
      • sexual assault (Para 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13)
      • sexual harassment (Para 1)
    • offences against minors
      • child sexual abuse under pocso (Para 1, 2, 4, 7, 15, 16)
    • wrongful confinement (Para 1, 2, 6)
  • practice and procedure
    • bail
      • regular bail (Para 1, 3, 4, 16, 17)
      • bail considerations in pocso cases (Para 4, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16)
    • evidence
      • victim testimony (Para 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15)
      • medical evidence (Para 2, 3, 13)
      • delay in lodging fir (Para 3, 4)
    • victim protection
      • non-disclosure of victim identity (Para 19, 20, 21, 22)

Table of Contents

1. Bail application for alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )

2. Applicant claims false implication, contradictions, and delay; State relies on consistent victim testimony and gravity of offence. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Regular bail dismissed — Court finds victim's testimony consistent and allegations grave — Directions issued on non-disclosure of victim identity. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )

4. Can the occurrence of an alleged offence during the Covid-19 pandemic alone be a ground to disbelieve the victim's version in a sexual assault case?

No, it cannot be a ground to presume the offence could not have been committed or to disbelieve the victim. (Para 7 )

5. Does a consensual relationship between the victim's mother and the accused provide a ground to doubt the victim's testimony in a sexual assault case?

No, such a relationship does not provide any ground to doubt the victim's testimony, as the victim's consistent disclosure stands independently. (Para 8 )

6. Is it permissible for a court to make a prima facie assessment of a minor victim's testimony at the stage of considering bail?

Yes, a prima facie assessment is permissible, especially when the testimony has been recorded and cross-examination conducted. (Para 10 )

7. Can the conduct of a third party (such as the victim's mother) be the sole ground to doubt the version of a minor victim in a sexual assault case?

No, the conduct of a third party cannot be the sole ground to doubt the version of a minor victim; the court must accord due weight to the victim's consistent disclosure. (Para 15 )

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 582/2021, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 342/376(2)(i)(n)/354(C)/505-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’] and Section 6/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter ‘POCSO Act’].

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 24.09.2021, a PCR call vide DD No. 53A was received at P.S. Moti Nagar, Delhi, regarding the incident of molestation of a child. On reaching the spot, the police officials found that the matter pertained to sexual assault of a minor girl. A counsellor was called and the prosecutrix was medically examined vide MLC No. 7469/21. The prosecutrix submitted a written complaint alleging that on the same day at about 9:00 AM, the present accused Vicky Kashyap had taken her to a room on the pretext of talking and had committed sexual assault upon her. The incident came to light when the mother of the prosecutrix searched for her and reached the accused‟s house. On the basis of the complaint, counselling report, and MLC, an FIR was registered for offence under Section 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, and the matter is presently pending trial.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated and has been in judicial custody since 27.09.2021, despite the investigation having been completed and the material public witnesses having already been examined. It is argued that only formal witnesses remain, and therefore there is no possibility of the applicant influencing the prosecution evidence. The learned counsel contends that the case rests solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies, and subsequent improvements, rendering it unreliable and suggestive of tutoring, particularly by the mother of the prosecutrix. It is further urged that there was an unexplained delay of several hours in making the PCR call and in lodging the FIR, which casts doubt on the prosecution version. The medical evidence is stated to be inconclusive, as the MLC records no injuries or signs consistent with sexual assault, and the FSL report is silent with regard to male DNA. It is also argued that although the prosecutrix alleged that accused had videographed the alleged sexual acts, no such material has been found despite the mobile phone of accused having been sent to FSL. He further submits that the mother of the prosecutrix was in a consensual physical relationship with the accused and that the accused had been financially assisting her family, which relationship was resented by the prosecutrix, leading to a false implication of the accused. The learned counsel also contends that the incident is alleged to have occurred during the Covid-19 period in the year 2021, when movement of people was restricted and social interaction was minimal, and therefore, according to him, the likelihood of the alleged offence having been committed in the manner projected by the prosecution is doubtful. Thus, it is prayed that the present applicant be released on regular bail.

4. The learned APP for the State strongly opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations pertain to a grave sexual offence against a minor. It is argued that the prosecutrix has consistently supported the prosecution case in her complaint, in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., and also in her testimony before the learned Trial Court, which lends strong prima facie credibility to her version. The learned APP contends that in cases involving child sexual abuse, the testimony of the victim, if consistent and trustworthy, is sufficient at this stage to deny bail, and issues relating to delay, medic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top