$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8189/2026 GAYASSUDIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hemraj Murmu, Mr. Arun Kumar Bharti and Mr. Tanay Jareda, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO/SI Shakuntala, PS Jamia Nagar CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 167/2025 of PS Jamia Nagar for offence under Section 69/123/89/79/351/115(2) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. In furtherance of last order, testimony of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court and copy of the same has been filed by prosecution with the status report. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Shakuntala. I have also heard the prosecutrix (who herself is a law student) as well as her counsel.

3. Broadly speaking, the case set up by the prosecution is that despite BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4afec455 Signature Not Verified 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA p se o r s ia ta lN lC u o m d b e= er 1 = 1 d 0 3 0 e 0 8 3 6 , 7 st 9 = 6 D 4 e 5 l 1 h e i, c 45c07b5d15570 Digitally Signed 9 cn 9 = 6b G 4 IR 0 I f S 8 H 0 c K b A d T 2 H e P e A e6 LI 0 A 4 02c487965f801e26fa, Date: 2026.04.09 05:11:50 -07'00'

specific and detailed allegations of rape, followed by pregnancy and abortion, the prosecutrix after attaining the age of majority opted to get married with the accused/applicant.

3.1 The FIR was registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, alleging that at the age of 16 years, the prosecutrix developed friendship with the accused/applicant over Facebook and on his request, she accompanied him to a flat of his friend. The accused/applicant specifically assured that they would just sit and talk and nothing wrong would be done to her. Once inside the flat, the accused/applicant served her a soft drink and chicken, which she consumed and gradually lost consciousness. In the evening, on regaining consciousness, she found herself completely naked and also found the accused/applicant naked lying by her side; there were blood stains on the mattress and she felt pain in her private parts, so she started crying. At that stage, the accused/applicant assured to get married with her after she attained age of 18 years. Thereafter, the accused/applicant went out to bring some pain killer and gave the same to her and at about 08:30 pm both of them left the flat and she returned home. Thereafter, again the accused/applicant took her to his home when none else was there and indulged in sex with her. Even thereafter, the accused/applicant, falsely assuring her to get married, repeatedly took her to a hotel and indulged in sexual relations. During the said period, she got pregnant twice and the accused/applicant got the pregnancy terminated. But after she attained the age of 18 years, the accused/applicant refused to get married with her and even started beating her up. It is with that background, the prosecutrix BAIL APPLN. 1087/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages Digitally Signed lodged a complaint with the police which was registered.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that subsequent to registration of the case, the accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix, so it is a fit case to release him on bail. In this regard, learned counsel for accused/applicant also places reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded by the trial court and submits that the prosecutrix never had any grievance with the accused/applicant and that she was not even aware about the contents of her complaint, because the same was drafted by her counsel in Saket Courts.

5. The prosecutrix and her counsel also sup