Delhi High Court – Orders
Haseena @ Lado vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 29 April, 2026
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 88/2026
HASEENA @ LADO .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Amjad Khan, Mr. Mohd.
Azhruddin and Mr. Amit Khowal,
Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for
the State with Ms. Upasna Bakshi
and Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh,
Advocates with SI Pavan Kr, PS:
Sunlight Colony
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 29.04.2026
1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the applicant seeks grant of
regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.34/2017 dated
02.02.2017 registered at PS.: Sun Light Colony, Delhi under Sections
363/376D/370/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4/6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
2. Briefly put, as per prosecution, on 02.02.2017 the prosecutrix was
produced at PS Sunlight Colony, Delhi by the staff of PS Hazarat
Nizamuddin along with an activist from Delhi Commission for Women.
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54
Therefter, her statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded, wherein
she stated that in October 2016 she ran away from her house in
Chhattisgarh and reached New Delhi railway station. There, she was lured
by the co-accused Arman, who took her to a room in Sarai Kale Khan,
Delhi where she met his wife, the present applicant. The accused Arman
sexually assaulted her in the presence of the applicant and after two days,
sold her to co-accused Pappu Yadav, who forcibly married her in a temple
and thereafter repeatedly subjected her to physical and sexual abuse.
Subsequently, on 28.01.2017 the prosecutrix escaped from the clutches of
the Pappu Yadav and returned to Hazarat Nizamuddin Railway Station,
where she was intercepted by the present applicant, who forcibly
intoxicated the prosecutrix and thereafter facilitated the gang rape by other
co-accused persons. Based on the aforesaid statement, the present FIR
came to be registered.
3. Eventually, the present applicant was arrested on 11.04.2017.
4. In these facts, of the many grounds raised in the present application,
learned counsel for the applicant praying for release of applicant on bail
primarily submits that [i] the applicant is a young woman with no criminal
antecedent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; [ii] the
applicant is in continuous judicial custody for an inordinately long period
of about nine years; [iii] though Section 35(b) of the POCSO Act provides
that the trial be completed within a period of one year from the date of
taking cognizance, the present trial has remained pending for several years
which amounts to violation of applicant’s fundamental right to speedy trial
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; [iv] around 12
witnesses out of total 33 witnesses still remained to be examined; [v]co-
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54
accused Pappu Yadav and Mohd. Afroz have already been granted bail
and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity; [vi] the case
of the prosecution suffers from material inconsistencies inasmuch as
several public witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the
prosecution case as also that there exist material contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecutrix; and lastly [vii] as per bone ossification of the
victim the higher side of the age of the victim is 18 years.
5. Per contra, learned APP for State has handed over the status report,
which is taken on record. Relying thereon and opposing the grant of bail
to the applicant, he submits that [i] the allegations against the applicant are
serious in nature; [ii] applicant was an active participant in the
commission of the alleged offences inasmuch as she had facilitated the
acts attributed to the co-accused persons; [iii] trial is at the fag-end, with
all material witnesses having already been examined and only formal
witnesses remaining; [iv] the applicant stands on a different footing from
that of the co-accused who have been granted bail and, as such, cannot
claim parity.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the records.
7. No doubt, the facts and circumstances herein are grave and serious
invoking Sections 363/376D/370/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, however, it is an undeniable fact that
the applicant is a woman with clean antecedents and more than anything
else, she has been facing incarceration for almost nine years, and that she
has not been able to get a speedy trial. Today, the trial is at the stage of
prosecution evidence, when as many as 12 out of 33 witnesses are still left
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54
to be examined, which will seemingly take time. Resultantly, the end is
not near.
8. Records reveal and there is/ are no allegations and/ or untoward
pointing towards the applicant which reflect that she has tried to influence
the witnesses and/ or tamper with the evidence and/ or hamper the trial at
any stage during the past nine years.
9. Moreover, as per the Nominal Roll received, her conduct has been
‘Satisfactory’.
10. Be that as it may, there may be other various aggravating factors
which may form the basis of denying bail to the applicant, however, this
Court while dealing with the present bail application cannot lose sight of
the cumulative effect of the factors such as long incarceration of the
applicant, denial of speedy trial to her, her behaviour inside jail while
facing incarceration. All the aforesaid factors gain much significance, and
when coupled with the factum that the applicant is, as on date, only an
accused, and is yet to be pronounced guilty, assume significance and have
to be given due weightage and are thus also essential elements for
consideration. All accused like the applicant are to be accorded benefit of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which includes the right to a speedy
trial, which the applicant has not been able to get, and the right to liberty,
though not of the same magnitude as an ordinary citizen.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that prolonged
incarceration without any likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future
amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed
under Article 21 thereof. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb: (2021) 3 SCC
713 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once it is obvious that a
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54
timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered
incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily
be obligated to enlarge him/her on bail.
12. Similarly, in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra : Crl.A.2787/2024, the Supreme Court has also observed as
under:-
“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the
court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect
the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State
or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea
for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.
Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime.”
13. Lastly, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the
other co-accused persons namely Pappu Yadav and Mohd. Afroz have
already been granted bail. Though the role attributed to them is different
from that attributed to the applicant herein and the same, in itself, is not a
determinative consideration for enlarging the applicant on bail, however, it
lends some support to the cause of the applicant.
14. Accordingly, keeping in mind all the above cumulative factors in
the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is entitled to grant of a
regular bail. As such, the present application is allowed. The applicant be
thus released on regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.34/2017
dated 02.02.2017 registered at PS.: Sun Light Colony, Delhi under
Sections 363/376D/370/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, upon her furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] along with one
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54
surety of the like amount by a family member/ friend having no criminal
case pending against him/ her and subject to the satisfaction of the Jail
Superintendent, and further subject to the following conditions:
i. Applicant shall not leave NCT of Delhi without prior
permission of this Court and shall ordinarily reside at the address as
per prison records. If she wishes to change his residential address,
she shall immediately intimate about the same to the IO by way of
an affidavit.
ii. Applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the IO,
within a period of three days.
iii. Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the
matter is taken up for hearing.
iv. Applicant shall provide all her mobile numbers to the IO
concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and
shall not be switch off or change the mobile number without prior
intimation to the IO concerned. Mobile location be kept on at all
times.
v. Applicant shall report to the IO at PS: Sun Light Colony once
every month in the first week of the month unless leave of every
such absence is obtained from the learned Trial Court.
vi. Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall
not communicate with or come in contact with any of the
prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.
15. The present bail application, along with pending applications, if
any, is disposed of.
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54
16. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
information and compliance.
17. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits involved, if
any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present bail
application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
APRIL 29, 2026/So
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 30/04/2026 at 21:54:54