Bail.Appl.No.3215/2021 Page 1 of 34

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 17.11.2021

Date of decision: -01.02.2022

+

BAIL APPLN. 3215/2021

VISHAL TYAGI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms.

Priya

Kumari,

Mr.

Shubham Nagpal & Mr. K.S.

Yadav, Advocates.

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Asha Tiwari, APP for State

with SI Satender Singh, PS

Burari.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J

1.

The applicant vide the present application seeks the grant of bail

in relation to FIR No.487/2017, Police Station Burari under Sections

366/354/354A/354B/376/506/392/411/323/341 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 submitting inter

alia to the effect that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

instant case; that there are contradictions and variations in the

complaint made by the prosecutrix and her statement under Section

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000367

Bail.Appl.No.3215/2021 Page 2 of 34

164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and her deposition before the Court which

contradictions are material in nature; that the applicant has been

incarcerated for more than two years.

2.

Notice of the application was issued to the State and to the

prosecutrix through the Investigating Officer of the case. The

prosecutrix put in appearance through video conferencing on

28.9.2021 and stated that she has now become a graduate and is

currently working in retail banking and in reply to a specific Court

query as to whether she opposes the bail application of the applicant or

not, submitted that she opposed the same.

3.

During the course of submissions that were made on the bail

application

on

28/9/2021,

the

learned

counsel

for

the

applicant/petitioner submitted to the effect that the age of the

petitioner on the date of the alleged commission of the offence was

less than 18 years in as much as the progress report of the petitioner as

issued by the Chhotu Ram Public School, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi,

showed his date of birth to be 30.10.1999. The State in reply to a

specific Court query stated that in Column No. 11A in the charge

sheet, the age of the applicant had been put forth as 18 years and thus

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000367

Bail.Appl.No.3215/2021 Page 3 of 34

vide order dated 28.9.2021 the Investigating Officer of the case was

directed to make an endeavour to collect the birth certificate of the

applicant and to verify the same from his school records and the

Investigating Officer was also directed to conduct a verification in

relation the progress report submitted by the petitioner. The State

submitted the status report in relation to the progress report of the

applicant.

4.

The status report dated 05.10.2021 submitted under the

signatures of Inspector Suresh Kumar, SHO Burari indicates to the

effect that on verification of the alleged progress report of the

applicant/accused Vishal Tyagi wherein his date of birth was

mentioned as 30.10.1999, it was informed by the concerned school

authorities that the said date of birth was a clerical mistake and that as

per the undertaking declaring the date of birth of the applicant as given

by his guardian Virender Singh, the real uncle of the applicant, the

date of birth of birth of the applicant is 30.10.1998 which is also as per

the school records and the copy of the age proof document supplied by

the school were annexed with the status report.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000367

Bail.Appl.No.3215/2021