$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4536/2025 HEMANT TYAGI ..... Applicant Through: Mr. S.A. Khan and Mr. Mishthy Sharma, Advocates. versus STATE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI Vikram Singh, P.S. Welcome Ms. Nandita Rao, Ms. Archana Gaur, Mr. Manoj Makhija, Ms. Lochan Rajput, and Mr. Jai Shankar, Advocates for victim. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 21.05.2026 1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 180/2023 registered under Sections 354/376AB IPC and Sections 6/10 POCSO at P.S. Welcome, Delhi. 2. The present FIR came to be registered on 13.02.2023 by the father of the child victim, alleging that the applicant, being the maternal uncle of the child victim, had committed the offences under the aforesaid Sections when the child victim used to visit her uncle’s house during the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant was specifically accused of putting his hand in the child victim’s underwear, inserting his finger into her vagina as well as anus, biting her on the cheeks, and kissing her on the lips. The FIR further alleges that when the child victim disclosed the incident to her grandparents, the 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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:30 same came to the knowledge of the complainant, which led to the registration of the FIR. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed. 3. The applicant was initially granted bail by the Trial Court on 03.05.2023. This Court, vide order dated 29.08.2024 in CRL.M.C. 3971/2023, cancelled the bail. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl.) 12933/2024. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the said SLP, granted liberty to the applicant to file a fresh application in case of change of circumstances or, in the event the trial gets prolonged for reasons not attributable to the applicant. The applicant thereafter surrendered on 25.09.2024 and, since then, is stated to be in judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the passing of the aforesaid orders, the trial has proceeded, and the child victim, her father/the complainant, her grandmother, as well as her grandfather, stand examined. He submits that the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses not only show material improvements but also inter se contradictions, thus weakening the prosecution’s case. Insofar as the child victim, in particular, is concerned, it is submitted that her deposition does not contain the necessary ingredients required to constitute the offences in question. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to the following portion of her testimony:- “Q.20) Aapka mann aapki naani ke ghar jaane ko kyun nahi karta tha? Ans. Wahan par mujhe acha nahi lagta tha. Q.21) Aapko wahan acha kyun nahi lagta tha? Ans. Kyunki waha par mera mann nahi lagta tha. Q.22) Mann nahi lagta tha se aapka kya matlab hai ? Ans. Kyunki wahan mujhe meri maamu pareshan karte the. Q.23) Wo aisa kya karte the ki aap pareshan ho jate the? 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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:30 Ans. Gala ghotte (pressing my neck) the, gaalon pe kaate the (bite), aur underwear mein hath daalte the aur sunghte (smell) the.” It is submitted that the allegations have no medical or forensic support, inasmuch as not only was the incident reported after nearly three years, but internal medical examination was also refused. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody for nearly 2 years and the material witnesses have been examined; however, 12 formal witnesses are yet to be examined. It is stated that despite the applicant being the child victim’s real uncle, she could not identify him during her examination-in-chief. 5. Learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the present application. It is submitted that the bail granted to the applicant was rightly cancelled by this Court. Further, the submissions on contradictions are immaterial, as the witnesses have stated consistently with respect to their statements recorded during investigation. There is no contradiction insofar as the offence alleged is concerned. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that though, on the first day, the child victim could not identify the applicant, immediately on the next day, the child victim identified him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, in rejoinder, that the child victim has not deposed about insertion and her testimony does not align with the allegations levelled against the applicant in the subject FIR. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties as well as the learned APP for the State and have also gone through the material placed on record. 8. It is pointed out that during her examination-in-chief, a portion of which has been extracted hereinabove, no question was put to the child 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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:30 victim by the learned APP on the core aspect of the allegations of insertion of finger in her vagina as well as anus. It is also borne out from the record that there was matrimonial acrimony between the complainant (father of the child victim) and the mother of the child victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that there is variance in the statements of the witnesses as to when the father was in Nagpur or when he shifted to Delhi. It has also been pointed out that there are material improvements in the statement of the complainant on the aspect of receiving a phone call from the applicant to send the victim to his house. 9. As noted above, the applicant surrendered on 25.09.2024 and more than 1½ years have passed since then. The prosecution is yet to examine 12 more witnesses. Without commenting on the rival contentions as to the omissions/contradictions in the statement of the child victim and as to whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO are made out, which shall be evaluated by the Trial Court at the conclusion of trial after appreciating all the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/concerned Court/Duty M.M., and further subject to the following conditions:- i) The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer, on which he will remain available during the pendency of the trial. ii) In case of a change of residential address or contact 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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:30 details, the applicant shall promptly inform the concerned Investigating Officer as well as the concerned Court. iii) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence. iv) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court during the pendency of the trial. 10. The present bail application is disposed of in the above terms. 11. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance. 12. Needless to state, nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case, as the same has been expressed only for the purpose of the disposal of the present bail application. DASTI. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 21, 2026 na 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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:30