Mr. Rajesh Anand, Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Mr. Pawan Yadav and Ms. Radha, Advocates v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ANR

Judgment

1. These applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seek regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR No. 303/2024 dated 28th May, 2024, registered at P.S. Rani Bagh for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(c), 120B, 354, 354(D), 328, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 read with Sections 6, 10 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 4. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2.1 The FIR was registered on a complaint of the prosecutrix, a girl child aged 14 years. In her complaint, she stated that the Applicants, Shaveta Kataria and Ashish Kansal, along with co-accused Shekhar Kansal, had been acquainted with her family for the past ten years. During this period, it is alleged that co-accused Shekhar Kansal administered intoxicating substances to her, subjected her to sexual assault including acts of molestation and digital penetration, and issued threats to her life.

2.2 The prosecutrix thereafter underwent counselling by a DCW 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “IPC” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 2 of 19 counsellor, and her medical examination was conducted at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi. The MLC records allegations of sexual assault against Shekhar Kansal and his younger brother, Ashish Kansal.

2.3 The Prosecutrix disclosed that Shekhar had introduced himself to her family as a spiritual “baba”, claiming to possess special powers to bless devotees and resolve their life’s problems. Her family, believing in these claims, reposed blind faith in him and would bow down before him. Exploiting this trust, Shekhar is alleged to have administered cigarettes and prashad laced with intoxicants to the family. Under such influence, he would, on a regular basis, touch the prosecutrix inappropriately on her neck, face, lower back, and private parts. It is further alleged that the applicant Shaveta Kataria coerced the prosecutrix to engage in inappropriate activities with Shekhar and to consume the said prashad. Allegations have also been levelled that Ashish Kansal similarly assaulted the prosecutrix on multiple occasions.

2.4. In or about December 2023, Ashish Kansal allegedly began making physical advances towards the prosecutrix. He would hug her in a manner that made her distinctly uncomfortable and, when she attempted to resist, he is said to have touched her back, shoulders, and face against her will. On one occasion, when she was alone with him in a car while out to purchase an item, he allegedly touched her on her thighs, back, and chest. It is further alleged that he frequently addressed her in crude and sexually inappropriate terms.

2.5. The prosecution also asserts that the accused had unhindered access to the prosecutrix’s mobile phone and threatened her that, if she spoke out, her 4 “POCSO Act” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 3 of 19 photographs and videos would be circulated. In addition, it is alleged that pressure was brought to bear on the prosecutrix’s father, who was coerced into transferring money into the accounts of the accused under unspecified pretexts.

2.6. The Applicants, along with co-accused Shekhar Kansal, were arrested on 31st May, 2024. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 25th July, 2024, under Sections 120B, 354D, 328, 323 and 506 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO Act against Shaveta Kataria; and under Sections 120B, 354, 354D, 328 and 506 of IPC read with Sections 10 and 17 of POCSO Act against Ashish Kansal.

3. Both the Applicants, Shaveta Kataria and Ashish Kansal, initially approached the Sessions Court seeking grant of regular bail. Their applications were dismissed by orders dated 6 th August, 2024 and 2nd September, 2024, respectively.

4. Thereafter, by a common order dated 26 th November, 2024, a coordinate bench of this Court directed the release of both Applicants on regular bail.

5. The Complainant challenged the abovementioned order before the Supreme Court. By a common order dated 15th July, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the order dated 26 th November, 2024 and remanded both applications to this Court for fresh consideration. While doing so, the Supreme Court specifically observed that the High Court had not furnished adequate reasons for granting bail in a case involving such serious allegations under the IPC and POCSO Act. At the same time, the Supreme Court directed that, until disposal of the applications, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Applicants. For ease of reference, the relevant portions Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 4 of 19 of the order dated 15th July, 2025 are extracted below: “Leave granted. 2. The appellant is the complainant and the father of the alleged minor victim. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Bail Application Nos.3339/2024 and 3306/2024 by the High Court of Delhi by which the High Court has granted the relief of bail to the respondent- accused(s), subject to certain terms and conditions, the complainant is before this Court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASG; learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s) and perused the material on record. 4. During the course of submissions, appellant’s counsel drew our attention to the tenor of the impugned order and contended that while granting the relief of bail in a case where serious offences have been alleged against the accused vis-a-vis the minor victim, the High Court has failed to record any reason for doing so. 5. In this regard, our attention was drawn to ‘paragraph 11’ of the impugned order to contend that the High Court has in fact found fault with the contents of the FIR so as to grant relief to the respondent-accused(s). He submitted that on a reading of the statement of the minor victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and having regard to the serious nature of the crime alleged against the accused, the High Court ought not to have granted the relief of bail to the respondent-accused(s). He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set-aside and the bail granted to the respondent-accused(s) may be cancelled. 6. Learned senior counsel and learned ASG appearing for the respondent-State also supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant herein. She contended that having regard to the fact that the victim is a minor girl child, the allegations against the accused are serious and therefore the High Court ought to have been more cautious in considering the case of the respondent-accused(s). 7. the respondent-accused(s) supported the impugned order and contended that the accused have been enjoying the relief of the bail order since November 2024, that there has been no violation of any of the terms and conditions of the bail; that they have been cooperating with the Sessions Court inasmuch as they have been appearing on all dates of hearing. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals. 8. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the facts of the present case and in light of the impugned order. We note that the allegations made against the respondent-accused(s) in FIR No.303/2024 dated 28.05.2024 are under Sections 120B, 323, 328, 354, 354D, 376, 376(C) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6, 10 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012. The respondent- accused were remanded to judicial custody on 02.06.2024 when they were learned counsel Per contra, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 5 of 19 arrested from Khanauri Mandi, Punjab from the house of accused No.1. The chargesheet was filed on 24.07.2024. The investigation has been carried out and since respondent-accused(s) were arrested they sought for relief of bail before the Trial Court which was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the respondent-accused(s) preferred their bail applications before the High Court. 9. We have perused the impugned order passed by the High Court by granting the relief of bail. We note that while the High Court has recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties at length has given reason only in ‘paragraph 11’ for the purpose of granting the relief of bail. For immediate reference, we extract ‘paragraph 11’ of the impugned order as under: initiated the petitioners. However, “11. The complaint being filed by the victim in this case on the basis of which criminal proceedings were meticulously being made with a subject and makes leveling serious allegations against complaint is silent about the time period during which the offence was committed except the complaint dated 24.05.2024, the complainant has stated that this had been happening for the last five-six months. Except this, there is no specific date and time of any alleged incident, if we compare this testimony with the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 29.05.2024, the victim gave the alleged time of offence as only in November, 2023 and December, 2023. This is an apparently marked contradictions. The allegations against Shaveta Kataria is only regarding giving intoxicating consumable and abatement of offence, the allegations against Ashish Kansal is that he also started doing the same thing which allegedly Shekhar Kansal is doing. The Court has to restrain itself to make any comment on the merits of the case and it may prejudice the parties.”

10. On a perusal of the same, we find that the reasons assigned thereunder are not in tandem with the relief that was actually sought for and the relief that was granted to the respondent-accused(s). 11. In the circumstances, we find that even though several conditions may have been imposed while granting bail, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have considered the matter(s) from all perspectives and as to whether the accused were entitled to the relief of bail. 12. In the circumstances, we find that the ends of justice would be met in the instant cases if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the bail applications made by the respondents before the High Court. 13. Since we are remanding the matter to the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of the bail applications at the earliest and within a period of one month from first date of hearing. For that purpose, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 6 of 19 parties shall appear in-person or through their respective counsel before the High Court on 23.07.2025. 14. Since we have requested the High Court to dispose of the bail applications in a time-bound manner and bearing in mind the fact that the respondent-accused(s) had the benefit of the impugned order, we direct that no coercive steps shall be taken till the disposal of the bail applications by the High Court. 15. However, the respondent-accused(s) shall cooperate with the Sessions Court and shall appear on all dates of hearings when they are required to do so. The reconsideration of their matters by the High Court would not come in the way of the Sessions Court’s proceedings in the matters. The bonds executed by the respondent-accused(s) shall remain till 16. the disposal of the applications filed by the respondent-accused(s) herein by the High Court. These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

6. The present applications have been placed before this Court for reconsideration on merits, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS

7. Mr. Rajesh Anand, counsel for the Applicants, in support of the prayer for grant of regular bail, advances the following submissions: False Implication and Motive:

7.1. The Applicants have been falsely implicated and have already remained in custody for over five and a half months. The investigation now stands concluded, and a chargesheet was filed on 25 th July, 2024. With the case at the stage of arguments on charge, the trial is likely to be protracted, warranting release of the Applicants on bail pending its conclusion.

7.2. There exists a background of financial dealings and disputes between the father of the prosecutrix and the applicant Shaveta Kataria. Shaveta herself had previously been subjected to harassment, blackmail, and sexual exploitation at the hands of the complainant’s father. In this backdrop, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 7 of 19 subject FIR is filed with a mala fide intent, engineered to exert pressure in connection with those disputes rather than a genuine prosecution of crime.

7.3. The complaint dated 24th May, 2024, which forms the basis of the FIR, is a two-page typed document bearing the purported signature of the 14-year-old prosecutrix. The language, structure, and level of detail in the complaint are incongruous with the age and educational level of the minor, suggesting the contents were drafted by an adult and not by the child herself. Delay and Contradictions:

7.4. There is a significant and unexplained delay in reporting the alleged incidents. Although the complaint was lodged on 25 th May, 2024, the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC shifted the timeline of the alleged incidents to November-December, 2023, indicating a gap of nearly five months, casting doubt on the spontaneity and reliability of the allegations. No inquiry into this delay has been undertaken by the investigating agency.

7.5. There are material contradictions between the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents. Initially, she alleged that the incidents took place in the months immediately preceding the complaint, but in her later statement, she placed them in November-December 2023. The mother of the prosecutrix stated that the father became aware of the matter in December, 2023, whereas the father himself deposed that he came to know only in March, 2024. Such discrepancies, according to the Applicants, strike at the root of the prosecution’s version and reinforce their contention that the case has been fabricated. Improbabilities in the Case of the Prosecution:

7.6. The incidents are alleged to have occurred within the residence of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 8 of 19 prosecutrix, where her mother, a housewife, and other siblings were present throughout. It is difficult to conceive that repeated acts of sexual assault could have been carried out in such circumstances without the knowledge or suspicion of the other family members.

7.7. The Applicants rely on photographs and other material placed before the Investigating Officer, showing that during the relevant period, the prosecutrix and her family continued to celebrate birthdays and other social functions with the Applicants. Such conduct, it is urged, is inconsistent with the claim that the family was labouring under trauma or hostility towards the Applicants.

7.8. The prosecutrix’s family also visited Khanauri, District Sangrur, Punjab, where the Applicants reside and manage their premises. No allegation of any untoward conduct at Khanauri has ever been levelled, which further undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative. Defects and Lapses in Investigation:

7.9. No site plan or internal sketch of the flat was prepared to show where the alleged incidents took place. Although the victim alleged that she had been intoxicated by being administered ladoos or prashad laced with drugs, no blood or urine sample was collected, nor was any toxicological test conducted to verify the claim. In the absence of such corroborative medical evidence, the allegation remains unsubstantiated. Intoxication, by its very nature, impairs memory and consciousness, raising doubt about the reliability of the prosecutrix’s recollection of events. It is further pointed out that the FSL report does not record any adverse finding against the Applicants.

7.10. Mandatory procedures relating to the investigation were not followed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 9 of 19 No inquiry was conducted under Section 24 of the POCSO Act, which specifically mandates that the statement of the child victim shall be recorded by a woman police officer, preferably at the residence of the child or a place of her choice, in a manner that is child-friendly and ensures the child’s comfort. However, in the present case, no such statement of the victim was recorded in accordance with the said provision. Furthermore, the requirements of Standing Order No. 303 (‘Guidelines for Police Response and Investigation in Cases of Sexual Offence’) dated 25 th May, 2019, issued by the Delhi Police, were not complied with. The Applicants were also never called upon or summoned to participate in the investigation, further reflecting the procedural lapses in the case.

7.11. The Investigating Officer failed to examine relevant aspects of the case, which fall in favour of the Applicants, such as certain photographs and WhatsApp chats between the parties. Illegality of Arrest:

7.12. The Applicants were apprehended from Khanauri, District Sangrur, Punjab, in violation of due process. The grounds of arrest were not supplied to them and therefore, their arrest was invalid. On this aspect, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of A.P. & Ors5.

7.13. No notice under Section 41A CrPC was issued to the Applicants, even though most of the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The invocation of Section 328 IPC in the present FIR is without evidentiary basis and has been deliberately included so as to evade the 5 SLP (CRL.) 7746/2025. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:12.09.2025 21:02:32 BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024 & BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024 Page 10 of 19 safeguards articulated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar6 and Satinder Singh Antil v. CBI7. Conduct and Antecedents of the Applicants:

7.14. The Applicants have clean antecedents and did not misuse the liberty granted to them, while they were out on bail in accordance with the order dated 26th November, 2024. Notably, Shaveta Kataria was granted interim bail between 16th June, 2024 and 3rd July, 2024 for her mother’s medical treatment. During this period, she neither misused her liberty nor attempted to evade surrender and duly returned to custody.

7.15. There is no evidence or circumstance on record to suggest that the Applicants are flight risks, have tampered with evidence, or have attempted to influence witnesses. CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND STATE

8. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, and Mr. Arun Khatri, counsel for the Complainant, strongly oppose the present bail applications and submit as follows:

8.1. The allegations pertain to sexual assault upon a minor girl aged about 14 years, attracting stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. The offence is grave and heinous, striking at the dignity and bodily integrity of a child. In such cases, the Courts are required to adopt a victim-centric approach and balance the rights of the accused against the larger societal interest in safeguarding children from sexual offences.

8.2. The prosecution case is supported by the statement of the Prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is sufficient at this stage to prima