Delhi High Court – Orders
Gurpal Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025
GURPAL SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 4870/2025
SHABANA .....Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Appearance:- Mr. Gautam Khazanchi & Mr. Digaant Kumar,
Advocates (DHCLSC) for Applicant in Item No. 1
Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Advocate (DHCLSC) Mr.
Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat & Ms. Charu
Sinha, Advocates for Applicant in Item No. 2.
Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State.
Mr. Kumar Shailabh, Advocate for the Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 23.03.2026
1. The applicants, who are husband and wife, seek regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Mundka,
Outer District, Delhi. The FIR was originally registered on 08.02.2022
under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], but Sections
341/343/368/114/506 of the IPC, Sections 17/21 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act“], and Section
77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
have subsequently been added.
2. I have heard Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, learned counsel for the
BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025 & Connected Matter Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 21:13:49
applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025, Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran,
learned counsel for the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 4870/2025, Ms.
Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr.
Kumar Shailabh, learned counsel for the complainant.
3. The prosecution has also filed a status report, a copy of which is on
record.
4. The prosecution case is that the FIR was registered at the instance
of the mother of the prosecutrix, who stated that her 14-year-old daughter
had gone missing from home on 07.02.2022. The prosecutrix was traced
on 15.02.2022 at a location at 35A, Khasra No. 12, Dharampura
Extension, Najafgarh, Delhi, where she was found in the company of
Riyaz Ahmad, son of Akram, at the house of one Shahin Khan @ Sanya,
wife of Atikur Rehman.
5. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”] was recorded, wherein she stated
that she had been induced to leave home on the promise of marriage by
the said Riyaz Ahmad. However, she was taken to the aforesaid premises
at Najafgarh and was kept confined there, where the present applicants
were also present. Although no allegation of sexual assault has been made
against the present applicants, it is alleged that the applicant, Gurpal
Singh, supplied alcohol and cigarettes to the main accused, and that the
prosecutrix was also compelled to consume alcohol prior to the
commission of the aforesaid acts upon her.
6. It has further been stated that when she sought help from the
applicants, they threatened her to remain silent, failing which she would
face dire consequences.
BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025 & Connected Matter Page 2 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 21:13:49
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that no overt act of a
sexual nature has been attributed to the applicants, and that such offences
are alleged only against the main accused, Riyaz Ahmad and Shahin
Khan @ Sanya. It is further submitted that these allegations were not
made in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but
were introduced subsequently in her testimony before the Court. Learned
counsel also submit that the applicants have been in custody for over four
years, and that although 10 witnesses have been examined, 23 witnesses
remain to be examined.
8. Ms. Shankaran further submits that the applicant, Shabana, is the
mother of a four-year-old child, who is presently lodged with her in jail.
9. Ms. Arya and Mr. Shailabh, however, submit that even though no
overt act of sexual assault is attributed to the present applicants, Sections
16 and 17 of the POCSO Act deal with abetment and provide that
abetment is punishable with the same punishment as the principal
offence.
10. In the present case, the offences, including Section 6 of the POCSO
Act against the main accused, carry a punishment of imprisonment for a
term not less than 20 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, or
even the death penalty. It is submitted that the applicants, if found guilty
of abetment, would be liable for the same punishment. Mr. Shailabh also
submits that the applicants were absconding and were arrested only on
02.03.2022. It is further submitted that the allegations of abetment are
consistent with the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded before the
learned Sessions Court.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that
BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025 & Connected Matter Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 21:13:49
this is not a fit case for grant of regular bail. Offences under POCSO are
doubtless very serious offences, in this case affecting a child who was
then only 14 years of age. Her testimony has been recorded before the
learned Sessions Court, in which the presence of the applicants in the
house has been reiterated. They are referred to therein as Shabana and Raj
Kumar; I am informed that Raj Kumar is an alias of the applicant Gurpal
Singh. She also identified all four accused, including the applicants. The
prosecutrix was kept at the same location for seven days. During this
period, it is specifically stated that the present applicants used to assist
and facilitate the main accused, and that the applicant Gurpal Singh also
threatened her with beating and forced her to drink liquor and smoke
cigarettes.
12. Although learned counsel for the applicants are right in saying that
these particular allegations did not find a place in the statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., I find prima facie that similar allegations were
made in the initial statement under Section 161. Although the probative
value and the effect of testimony rendered by the prosecutrix will have to
be examined at trial1, having regard to the nature of the allegations and
the material on record, I do not consider this an appropriate case for the
grant of bail to the applicants.
13. The applications are therefore dismissed.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants request that the
trial be expedited. They may make such a request to the learned Sessions
Court, which the Sessions Court may consider in accordance with its
1
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]; State of U.P. v. Anurudh [2026 SCC OnLine SC
40].
BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025 & Connected Matter Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 21:13:49
Board and the age of other matters pending before it. Ms. Arya assures
the Court that the prosecution will cooperate in this process.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 23, 2026
‘pv/JM’/
BAIL APPLN. 3704/2025 & Connected Matter Page 5 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/03/2026 at 21:13:49