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

2026 Supreme(Del) 570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Gagan Khanna - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. - Respondents
BAIL APPLN. No. 1275 of 2026 & CRL.M.A. No. 9995 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. J. Amal Anand, Mr. Elvin Joshy, Ms. Shivani Kalra, Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Mr. K.V. Vibu Prasad, Mr. Akshat Mishra, Mr. Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipri Palli, Mr. Bharat Khurana, Advocates along with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent:Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State., Mr. K.K Manan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suchakshu Jain, Ms. Uditi Bali, Ms. Akanksha Chandhok, Ms. Yakshi Kataria, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Mr. Lavish, Ms. Shivani, Ms. Jagriti, Ms. Rishika, Mr. Ankur.

Where serious allegations of non-consensual sexual activity and digital extortion are supported by forensic and documentary corroboration, and where crucial evidence remains to be recovered, the court must prioritize the integrity of the ongoing investigation and the safety of the victim over the applicant's liberty.

Headnote:(A) Laws relating to sexual assault - Grant of bail - Entitlement - Prosecution case supported by corroborative material including location analysis of mobile devices and documentation from professional establishments - Plea of alibi cannot be accepted at the stage of bail when there is sufficient documentary evidence to the contrary. (Paras 9-12)

(B) Evidence - Digital forensic report - Recovery of illicit content - Where investigation is ongoing regarding the recovery of the device utilized for the commission of the offence and the identity of an alleged accomplice remains unknown, granting liberty is improper. (Paras 12-13)

(C) Bail - Principles for grant - Allegations of coercion and intimidation of the victim during the pendency of proceedings constitute a material consideration against the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of an applicant. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
The accused, having allegedly gained the trust of the victim under the guise of facilitating professional placement, is accused of administering a substance to induce unconsciousness and forcibly recording intimate conduct for the purpose of blackmail. The investigation includes forensic examination of electronic devices and verifications from establishments identifying the presence of the involved parties.

Findings of Court:
The court found prima facie evidence linking the applicant to the location of the offence, bolstered by digital forensic findings and witness corroboration. The court emphasized that the requirement for further investigation, including the recovery of incriminating electronic evidence and the identification of co-conspirators, necessitates continued judicial oversight.

Issues: The primary issues concerned the validity of the alibi defence, the sufficiency of the forensic and documentary evidence to link the applicant to the offences, and the potential for witness intimidation.

Ratio Decidendi: An applicant is not entitled to bail where there is prima facie evidentiary support for the grave allegations, a requirement for further investigation into the recovery of incriminating materials, and substantiated claims of ongoing threats posed to the victim by the applicant.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of procedural history and fir allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflicting contentions regarding investigation reliability and bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. prima facie evidentiary assessment and alibi rejection. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. denial of bail based on impending investigation and intimidation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail, in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 637/2025, registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 64(1)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter "BNS"].

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, Ms. “R”, had filed a written complaint dated 20.12.2025 alleging that in August 2025, she had mistakenly transferred an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the account of the present applicant/accused Gagan Khanna. Thereafter, during subsequent conversations, the accused had allegedly represented himself to be a person having influential contacts in various Government Ministries, and had assured the prosecutrix that he would arrange a Government job for her. It has been alleged that after gaining her confidence, the accused had called her on 25.09.2025 to Hotel Saga, Green Park, New Delhi, where he had introduced her to another person claiming to be a Deputy Secretary in the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Delhi. Both of them had allegedly demanded an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for securing employment in All India Radio, Delhi, pursuant to which the prosecutrix had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-, on two prior occasions. It is further alleged that on 17.10.2025, the accused had again called the prosecutrix to Hotel Wood Castle Grand, Tagore Garden, Delhi, for the payment of the remaining amount. While she was waiting in a hotel room, the accused had allegedly offered her a soft drink, after consuming which, she had lost consciousness. Upon regaining her consciousness, she had allegedly found herself to be naked, and the accused had shown her a video which had the recording of the accused forcefully establishing physical relations with the prosecutrix. The accused had then used the same to threaten, coerce, and blackmail the prosecutrix to make such content viral on social media platforms. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR under Sections 64(1)/351(3) of the BNS was registered on 23.12.2025, and the accused was apprehended on 23.12.2025.

3. As per status report placed on record, during the course of investigation, the presence of the accused and the prosecutrix at Hotel Wood Castle Grand, Tagore Garden, Delhi, was verified from the hotel entry register, IDs submitted at the time of check-in/check-out, and statements of the hotel staff. The investigation conducted at Hotel Saga, Green Park had also confirmed the presence of both the prosecutrix and the accused through the hotel records, submitted IDs, statement of the hotel manager, and mobile location analysis. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of BNSS was also recorded on 07.01.2026, wherein she had disclosed that she had met the accused on 10.09.2025 and 20.09.2025 prior to their meeting at Hotel Saga, Green Park, New Delhi on 25.09.2025. The mobile location analysis of both the prosecutrix and the accused had also revealed, during the course of investigation, that they were present in close proximity at the relevant time. The prosecutrix further disclosed in her statement, that on 25.09.2025, she had met the accused at Hotel Saga, Green Park, Delhi, where the accused had introduced her to one “Sardar Ji” in connection with arranging a job in All India Radio, and based on the said assurance, she had handed over Rs.50,000/- in cash to the accused. The prosecutrix further alleged that the accused had deliberately instructed her to communicate with him only through F

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