Ms. Harshita Singh, Mr. Tushar Sagar, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

regular bail in FIR No.107/2018, registered at Police Station Badarpur, Delhi for offence under Sections 376(2)(f)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter ‘POCSO Act’). BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.03.2018, the complainant had lodged a complaint at P.S. Badarpur, Delhi, alleging that her daughter had been kidnapped, based on which an FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered. The complainant had also stated that prior to this incident, her daughter had stopped attending school. During the course of investigation, the missing girl was found, and her medical examination was conducted. The statement of the victim was thereafter recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she had revealed that her stepfather i.e., the present applicant/accused had, on various prior occasions, forcibly established physical relations with her. It was also revealed that her stepfather had been engaging in such activities since 2013, but due to fear, she had not disclosed the same to anyone. It was also disclosed by the victim that she had undergone abortion thrice due to sexual assault by the present applicant. On the basis of the statement of the victim, the accused persons were arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet under Sections 363/376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was filed against the accused persons.

3. The learned counsel appearing present accused/applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection with the alleged offence. It is contended that the applicant was arrested on 01.05.2018 and has remained in judicial custody ever since. He further argues that there are several contradictions in the testimony of the victim, BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27 which cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. It is also submitted that the victim was involved in a relationship with a boy, to which the applicant, being her father had objected to. It is argued that due to this, the victim had levelled false allegations against him, so as to teach him a lesson. It is also stated that victim had failed to provide any samples to the examining doctor during her medical examination. The learned counsel also argues that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the present complaint. It is also contended that the co- accused persons have already been granted bail, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant/accused is also entitled to the same relief.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State, who is also assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the victim/complainant, vehemently opposes grant of bail, and states that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. It is argued that in this case, if the bail is granted, there is likelihood that the applicant may threaten the complainant and other witnesses. It is contended that the testimony of the victim remains consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that out of eighteen prosecution witnesses, eleven witnesses already stand examined, all of whom have supported the prosecution's case. Regarding the plea of parity, it is argued that the allegations against the present applicant/accused are more serious in nature than those against the co-accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that the BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27 present bail application be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, and has perused the case file.

6. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant herein is the step father of the minor victim. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as before the learned Trial Court has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. Specific allegations have been levelled by her regarding the applicant committing sexual assault upon her, almost daily. Allegations of penile penetration had also been levelled against the present accused. The victim in her statement also mentions that she had to run away from the home to her maternal grandmother, in order to escape the daily sexual assault committed by the applicant. She had also informed her mother about the same, however, she was of little help to her. The history given by the victim to the doctor concerned also explains as to how the accused used to forcibly commit sexual intercourse with her, and the fact that she had allegedly undergone abortions thrice with the help of her mother adds to the gravity and seriousness of the offence.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant also seeks bail on grounds of parity with other co-accused persons. However, in this Court’s opinion, the allegations against the co-accused persons are different and no parity can be drawn with their roles and the role of BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27 the accused/applicant. The accused herein was the step father of the victim and therefore, the victim had trust, as step daughter in him, which has been violated repeatedly to the extent that she had become pregnant thrice. As noted above, the trauma of the victim was prima facie to the extent that she had to run away from home to live with her maternal grandmother to escape repeated, daily sexual assaults by her step father. In cases as the present one, where a person in authority and trust betrays the trust and commits sexual assault on victim, who may look at such person rather for protection, the person being step father, the offence assumes graver seriousness.

8. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, this Court is of the view that in cases such as the present one – where the victim’s own mother, prima facie, was of little assistance in protecting her from sexual assault at the hands of her stepfather – it may not be feasible for a young victim to immediately find someone to confide in or report the trauma of such abuse. For victims of sexual assault, especially young girls assaulted by a stepfather or another newly introduced familial relation, and living under the same roof with limited or no access to alternative shelter or support, the delay in reporting cannot be held against them.

9. In such cases, Courts must make a conscious effort to place themselves in the shoes of the victim, and evaluate the evidence in the broader social context of her lived circumstances. A young, BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27 helpless girl – unable to muster the courage to approach a police station and having received no support from the very family members in whom she confided – may find her only recourse to escape the repeated violation of her body is to physically remove herself from the place she once called home. Admittedly, after she fled to escape the sexual abuse, a missing person report was filed, and upon being traced by the police, she categorically refused to return to that house – rightly so, as it was the very place where she was assaulted, instead of being protected. It was only upon being placed in a shelter home, away from the immediate threat, that she felt safe enough to narrate her ordeal of repeated sexual assault at the hands of the accused.

10. To treat such delay in disclosure as fatal to the prosecution’s case, or to use it as a ground to disbelieve the victim, would amount to nothing short of adding insult to her injury. As repeatedly observed, Courts must stand with those who cannot always speak for themselves, and assess their trauma not through a cold, mathematical lens, but through an empathetic understanding of the harsh realities they were subjected to by fate.

11. The prosecution as of now has examined eleven out of eighteen witnesses who have supported the prosecution’s case and the trial is to conclude in some time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan: SLP(Crl.) 13378/2024 has observed that ordinarily, in offence like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining the witnesses, the BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27 Courts should be loath in entertaining bail applications of the accused.

12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no ground for grant of regular bail at this stage.

13. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.

14. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. APRIL 09, 2025/A DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J BAIL APPLN. 807/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2025 16:04:27