$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 3862/2025, CRL.M.A. 30114/2025 & CRL.M.A.

36848/2025 MOHD SULTAN ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Fahim A. Khan (through videoconferencing) and Mr. Tabish Kamal, Advocates.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with Inspector Dinesh Kumar and SI Akshay Dagar, PS Shaheen Bagh.

Ms. Shabana Anjam, Advocate (through videoconferencing).

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 348/2025 of Police Station Shaheen Bagh for offence under Section

64(1)/351(2) BNS.

1.1. For the first time, this bail application came up for hearing before the predecessor bench on 09.10.2025 and by way of detailed order, the accused/applicant was granted interim protection from arrest till next date.

D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD25ops7fDa e .5 0 uo iN a 5 , r g 6 9 =s tc i .:4 a i e t 9 9n t H c al . : a a 6 2 N = = lI 2 l f C b G 0I G 3 u 0 yN 4 o = H9 m 2I 0 s R , d 86 6 i C o fI be g 42 . 8S = 0 O=e 0 n c H0 3 H r 16 1U e c = .K df 1 2 Id b Rb G d A 0 d 5 d T b 4 3 H 0 8 T 2 1 8 y O e0 H 8 e 8 C 3 83 G F 9 eP: O 5 6 1 , b e I A Dd 7 R s 1 U2 6 t L E4 9 I : R = 7 0 3 S I L3 6 A H a 4 T 5 DH5 4 7 0 O - e f 5 I K 7 2 0 9,lC 1 AF h b c 7 7 e I 4 T i ' 26D D 0 ,c 8 H f2 4 E 0 6 - 7 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 9 c AH c f 0 6 a 0 LI 4c 5 , 7 I c A 7 f e b a6 4 85 ,3 a 0d f 8 1 e 1 , e c 52 4 56 That order continued on date to date basis and finally, this matter was assigned to this bench on 09.01.2026 when by way of detailed order, interim protection was extended till this date.

1.2. On last date (09.01.2026), learned counsel for accused/applicant alleged that on 01.08.2025, a phone call from prosecutrix was received on the mobile phone of the accused/applicant and he recorded the conversation according to which the prosecutrix has been blackmailing him. On directions, the accused/applicant filed a pendrive of that audio conversation. That pendrive was played today in the courtroom. Since the pendrive is yet to be forensically examined, it would not be appropriate to comment on genuineness thereof.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by the prosecutrix, a married lady, whose children are studying in the school where the accused/applicant is a teacher. In the month of October 2023, the accused/applicant allegedly visited residence of the prosecutrix under the pretext of giving some study material and he allegedly raped her. Again in the month of July 2024, the accused/applicant allegedly raped her. Thereafter, on 14.07.2025 the accused/applicant called up the prosecutrix and pressurized her to again indulge in sex with her. This time, the prosecutrix informed her husband and the FIR was lodged. It would also be significant to note that the prosecutrix is a member of the managing committee of the school in which the accused/applicant is employed as a teacher.

D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD25ops0cD e n .6 9 uo iN a 5 r g = 9 9 =s t i .:4 a i e t a 6G t H c al . : f a b 2 N = I 3 lI 2R l CG 4 0I 9 u 0 y I N 0 o = H S 6 m 2 f s, d H 82 6 8 i C o be g 4c . 0K = 0 O=e 06 n cA3 H r 1f 1U e b= b .T d 1 2 Id d R G 4 d H 0 d 5 2 T b 8 3 H 0 P 8 e 1 3 y O e0 A 8 e 8 C 5 83 G F 9 eL: O d 6 1 , b I6 I D A 4 7 R s 1 U2 0 tE3 9 I : R = 7 4 1 S L5 6 H a 0 T 8 DHf 4 7 2 9 O - e5 I K 7 c 0 7,lC 1 AF 4 h b 7 6 e I 8 T i ' 22D D 0 ,c 7 H f6 4 E 0 6 - 9 c P 5 L ' 5 7 6 a AH c f 0c 50 LI c4 f , 7 I a A 7 e 8b ,6 4 05 3 a 1d f 8 e e 1 , 2 c 56 4 5f 5 7a, 3. On behalf of accused/applicant, it is contended that the prosecutrix is a grown up lady and was in consensual relations with the accused/applicant. It is also contended that the prosecutrix being in a dominating position as member of the managing committee of the