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, medical