Delhi High Court – Orders
Sanjay vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 24 March, 2026
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025, CRL.M.A. 31448/2025, CRL.M.A.
6266/2026
SANJAY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim and Mr.
Mohsin Rahim, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State
with SI Arti Singh, P.S.: Begumpur.
Ms. Sushree Sipra Sahu and Mr.
Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocates for
the prosecutrix.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 24.03.2026
By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular
bail in case FIR No. 208/2024 dated 07.04.2024 registered under
section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘) at P.S.: Begum Pur,
Rohini, Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation,
allegations of offences under sections 323/342/354/354(D)/366/376
IPC and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act 2012 (‘POCSO Act‘), have been added vidé chargesheet dated
23.08.2024 filed in the matter.
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 1 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
2. Notice on this petition was issued vidé order dated 17.10.2025.
3. Consequent thereupon, Status Report dated 18.12.2025 alongwith
SCRB record dated 23.08.2024 have been filed on behalf of the State.
4. Nominal Roll dated 06.03.2026 has been received from the Jail
Superintendent.
5. The court has heard Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appearing
for the State; as well as Ms. Sushree Sipra Sahu, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the prosecutrix.
6. Mr. Rahim submits, that as recorded in order dated 07.11.2024 passed
by the learned sessions court, whereby the petitioner’s regular bail plea
was dismissed, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as
01.11.2007; and therefore, around the period when the offences are
alleged to have been committed, the prosecutrix was about 16 years
and 05 months of age; whereas the petitioner was about 26 years of old.
7. Mr. Rahim submits, that as can be seen from the chargesheet, the
petitioner and the prosecutrix are neighbours, and from her statement
recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(‘Cr.P.C.’), the following factual matrix has emerged:
7.1. The prosecutrix has narrated that in the evening of06.04.2024,
the parties had interacted, the allegation being that the petitioner
had pursued the prosecutrix, whereupon the prosecutrix had had
a conversation with the petitioner, who (latter) had expressed his
love for the prosecutrix and had said that he wanted to marry her.
7.2. Thereafter, on the intervening night of 06.04.2024 and
07.04.2024, the prosecutrix met with the petitioner at aboutBAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 2 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
2am-3am near her house, since she was feeling nervous about
what had happened earlier in the evening; and she stepped out of
the house to speak with the petitioner about the same. Thereafter,
the statement says that the parties went to the petitioner’s
friend’s house for the night. It is further stated that the parties
then headed to a certain public park, where they met the
petitioner’s parents; and from there the petitioner took the
prosecutrix to Peeragarhi.
7.3. The prosecutrix further states, that after roaming about here and
there for whole night, on the next date, they took a train to
Jalandhar in Punjab; and stayed there for a period of time,
whereafter, the prosecutrix states that the parties ‘got married’ in
a temple.
7.4. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrates that the petitioner took her to
Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh, where he took a room on rent and
they starting living together and the petitioner found work in a
nearby mandi in Jabalpur.
7.5. The prosecutrix further narrates, that while in Jabalpur, the
petitioner would lock her up in the room before leaving for work
and he did not let her speak to anyone. It is also alleged, that the
petitioner would continually force himself upon the prosecutrix,
despite her refusing to have physical relations with him.
7.6. It is also the case of the prosecutrix, that she was kept locked-up
for 03 months in a room while in Jabalpur, while the petitioner
threatened to kill her and did not let her communicate with
anybody.
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 3 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
7.7. Thereafter, the prosecutrix states, the petitioner took her to
Panna in Madhya Pradesh, where the parties lived with the
petitioner’s relative for 2 to 4 days, and then they boarded a train
and the petitioner brought her back to Delhi and dropped her off
at Peeragarhi.
8. Mr. Rahim submits, that the CDRs of the parties would show that on
the early morning of 07.04.2024, after the parties spoke to each other,
the prosecutrix stepped-out of her house and accompanied the
petitioner. Learned senior counsel argues, that from the prosecutrix’s
statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., it is evident that
the prosecutrix voluntarily went-out with the petitioner at about 2am –
3am on the 07.04.2024; and then travelled and stayed with him in
Delhi, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh up until 29.06.2024, when she
returned home.
9. Mr. Rahim argues, that there is no whisper of an allegation that the
petitioner had forced the prosecutrix out of her house or had forcibly
taken her away from Delhi to Punjab, and then to Madhya Pradesh; and
it is evident that the prosecutrix went with the petitioner without any
resistance, nor did she take any steps to free herself at any stage, at any
of the locations, either by reaching-out to her family or by creating hue
and cry, or otherwise by taking any steps to return to Delhi until the
petitioner brought her back to Delhi.
10. Learned senior counsel submits, that in this backdrop however, the
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.07.2024; and has
thereby suffered judicial custody for more than 01 year and 08 months
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 4 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
as an undertrial. It is pointed-out that the petitioner’s jail conduct has
been ‘satisfactory’; and he has no other criminal involvements.
11. It is further submitted, that chargesheet has been filed in the matter and
charges have been framed vidé order dated 07.11.2024. It is submitted
that the prosecution has cited 18 witnesses but prosecution evidence in
the matter is yet to begin.
12. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appearing for the State submits, that
insofar as the narration in the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the submissions on behalf of the
petitioner are in-line with what the prosecutrix has said in that
statement.
13. Upon being queried, Mr. Haider submits, that there is no medical
evidence in support of the offence, since the prosecutrix had refused
medical examination as is noted in the MLC conducted on
29.06.2024.It is also pointed-out by Mr. Rahim, that in the statement
given by the prosecutrix to the doctors at the time of her medical
examination, having first alleged that she had suffered forced physical
intercourse, the prosecutrix then says that the two of them had had
consensual sexual relations multiple times for 03 months.
14. Opposing the grant of bail, Ms. Sushree Sipra Sahu, learned counsel for
the prosecutrix submits, that at the petitioner’s instance, the prosecutrix
and her brother have received threats, including the threat that the
petitioner would kill the prosecutrix once he comes out of judicial
custody. Learned APP however submits, that no complaint in regard to
any such threat has ever been received by the I.O. from or on behalf of
the prosecutrix.
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 5 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
15. Upon a conspectus of the submissions made and the documents on
record, the following factors weigh with the court at this stage:
15.1. From her own statement recorded under section 164 of the
Cr.P.C., it is seen that on the intervening night of 06.04.2024 and
07.04.2024 between 02:00 a.m. and 03:00 a.m, the prosecutrix
left her house to meet the petitioner, though she states that she
did so since she was feeling nervous about what had happened
earlier that evening, and went-out to speak with the petitioner.
The statement also narrates, that thereafter, the prosecutrix went
along with the petitioner to his friend’s house for the night; and
that they also went to a certain public park on the next day; that
they met the petitioner’s parents, and from there, the petitioner
took her to Peeragarhi.
15.2. The prosecutrix further states, that after spending the night
roaming around with the petitioner, they took a train to
Jalandhar, Punjab, where they apparently got married in a
temple.
15.3. The prosecutrix also narrates, that thereafter the petitioner took
her to Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; where they rented a room and
the petitioner took-up a job; and they started living together.
15.4. She further states, that thereafter the petitioner took her to Panna
in Madhya Pradesh; and they lived there with the petitioner’s
relatives for 2-4 days; and only thereafter, did they return to
Delhi together.
15.5. The prosecutrix also says that while in Jabalpur, the petitioner
used to lock her in their room, where they were living, before
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 6 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
leaving for work; that he did not let her speak to anyone; and that
he would force himself upon her despite her refusal for physical
relations and that he also threatened to kill her. All this
notwithstanding however, what stands out is that the prosecutrix
never sought any help during the entire period of about 2½
months that she stayed with the petitioner; nor did she seek to
contact her parents; nor did she raise any hue and cry, even in
public places where she must have been over those months.
15.6. Since charges have been framed in the present case, this court
would also need to test the bail plea on the anvil of section 29 of
the POCSO Act. In-line with the view taken by this Bench in
Dharmander Singh @ Saheb vs. The State (Govt. of NCT,
Delhi)1, even in cases attracting section 29 of the POCSO Act,
there is no absolute bar to the grant of bail even after charges
have been framed, except that the threshold of satisfaction for the
grant of bail would be higher. This Bench has held that, in
addition to considering the nature and quality of evidence that
has come forth in the charge-sheet, the court would be required
to factor-in certain real life considerations which would tilt the
balance against or in favour of an accused.
15.7. Applying the test laid-down by this Bench in Dharmander Singh,
it is seen, that even as per the allegations in the charge-sheet, the
prosecutrix remained in the company of the petitioner for about
2½ months, travelling with him to Delhi, Punjab and Madhya
1
2020:DHC:2838
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 7 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
Pradesh before returning to Delhi. There is no material to show
that during this 2 ½ month period, the prosecutrix was subjected
to any brutality or other act that would add the element of
abomination to the offence.
15.8. It is also noticed that the petitioner is not a repeat offender; and
the record shows that the petitioner has suffered judicial custody
for more than 1 year and 08 months as an under trial; that his jail
conduct has been ‘satisfactory’; and that he has no other criminal
involvement.
15.9. Out of the 18 prosecution witnesses cited in the chargesheet, not
even one has deposed so far. Clearly therefore, trial in the matter
would take a substantial amount of time to complete.
16. In light of the above facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to
allow the present petition, granting to the petitioner – Sanjay s/o Jhallu
– regular bail, pending trial subject to the following conditions:
16.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 02 sureties in
the like amount from family members, to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court;
16.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the I.O./S.H.O., P.S.: Begum Pur,
a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at
any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched-on at all times; If the petitioner has a passport, he shall
surrender the same to the learned trial court and shall not travel
out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial
court;
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 8 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
16.3. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing;
16.4. Since the petitioner is facing trial and would therefore be
appearing before the learned trial court from time-to-time, it is
not considered necessary to impose a reporting requirement as a
condition of regular bail;
16.5. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any
inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution
witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The
petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge
in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial. More specifically, the
petitioner shall neither contact nor interact, whether directly or
indirectly, with the prosecutrix or her family, in any manner
whatsoever.
16.6. Furthermore, since the petitioner and prosecutrix are stated to be
the neighbours, living in the same locality about a lane away, the
petitioner shall not visit the lane in which the prosecutrix resides;
nor the college/educational institution which the prosecutrix
attends nor her place of work, if any.
17. It is made clear that any infraction of any of the bail conditions will be
viewed with extreme seriousness.
18. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the pending matter.
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 9 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47
19. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
forthwith.
20. The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.
21. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
MARCH 24, 2026
ds
BAIL APPLN. 4040/2025 Page 10 of 10
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 30/03/2026 at 20:40:47