BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 1 of 8 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 SUMIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja, Advocate from DHCLSC. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP. SI Pinki Dahiya. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 49/2023 dated 01.02.2023, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi. The FIR was initially registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. At the stage of filing of the chargesheet, offences under Sections 376D and 506 of the IPC, as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act”], were added. 2. I have heard Mr. Satyam Thareja, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Notice in the present application was issued on 23.12.2025, whereupon the Investigating Officer was directed to inform the prosecutrix/her family. The Investigating Officer states that 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 2 of 8 prosecutrix has been duly informed. However, despite service, none appears on behalf of the prosecutrix today. 4. The facts, as emerging from the material on record, are as follows: a) The present FIR was registered on 01.02.2023 on the complaint of the mother of the minor prosecutrix [then aged about 14 years 5 months], alleging that the prosecutrix had gone missing on 30.01.2023. While on her way to a relative’s home with her step- father and sister, the prosecutrix asked to be dropped near Balmiki Temple, Civil Lines, Delhi, on the pretext of purchasing momos. As she neither reached the residence of her relative nor returned home, it was suspected that she had been kidnapped. b) The prosecutrix returned home on 04.02.2023. She later experienced weakness, nausea and abdominal pain, which led her to suspect that she had been sexually assaulted. c) During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital vide Medico-Legal Case [“MLC”] No. 20/2023 on 06.02.2023. In the medical history recorded therein, she stated that she had voluntarily left home, without informing her parents, to attend a party in Narela with her friends and had remained there from 30.01.2023 to 04.02.2023 alongwith one “A”, and one “J”, and the present applicant. She further stated that, during the said period, she had repeatedly requested to return home but was asked to stay back. d) The prosecutrix also stated that she experienced abdominal pain upon waking every morning during the said period, and did not recollect what had transpired during the night, owing to which she 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 3 of 8 suspected that she had been sexually assaulted. The MLC further records that her Urine Pregnancy Test [“UPT”] was negative and that a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination kit [“SAFE kit”] was prepared. e) The prosecutrix was thereafter counselled and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”] was recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. She reiterated the allegations made in the MLC, and further stated that she had been in contact with “A” through Instagram and that the present applicant was her friend. She was thereafter produced before the Child Welfare Committee. Subsequently, her supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and Sections 376D and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added at the stage of filing of the chargesheet. f) The prosecutrix thereafter accompanied the investigating agency to identify the place of occurrence and pointed out Ramdev Chowk, Narela, as the place from where “A” had allegedly picked her up. However, she was unable to identify the exact place where the alleged incident had occurred. Her age was subsequently verified from the school records and she was found to be 14 years, 5 months and 7 days old on the date of the alleged incident. g) During investigation, “A” was found to be in judicial custody in another case, being FIR No. 331/2023 registered under Sections 380, 457 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Narela, Delhi. Upon verification of his date of birth, stated to be 26.04.2005, he was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law and separate proceedings 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 4 of 8 were initiated against him before the Juvenile Justice Board. In his disclosure statement, “A” stated that he had attended the party only to celebrate a birthday, and had thereafter left the premises, claiming that he had no knowledge of the events that transpired over the following three days. h) The status report states that, despite repeated efforts, the present applicant could not be apprehended and continued to evade arrest. According to his family members, his mobile phone remained switched off and they were unable to establish contact with him. Consequently, Non-Bailable Warrants [“NBWs”] were issued against him by the learned Sessions Court on 14.06.2023. During this period, the investigating agency also obtained the Call Detail Records of the applicant, which placed him in Narela between 31.01.2023 and 04.02.2023, i.e. during the period of the alleged incident. i) The applicant ultimately surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 23.06.2023, whereafter he was arrested and interrogated. During police custody, he allegedly disclosed that he had repeatedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix at his grandfather’s flat during his grandfather’s absence. During his one-day police remand, he also pointed out the place of occurrence. j) The garments of the prosecutrix and the blood samples of the applicant and “A” were thereafter sent for forensic examination. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”] report, DNA recovered from a semen stain on the pants of the prosecutrix matched the DNA from a blood sample of the present applicant, 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 5 of 8 whereas no such match was found with “A”. The conclusion recorded in the FSL Report is as follows: “CONCLUSION:- DNA profile (STR) analysis were performed on the exhibits ‘2a’ of the case SFSL/DLH/5393/BIO/BIO/1243/23 and ‘A’ & ‘B’ of the case SFSL/DLH/5393/BIO/1243/23(FM) were sufficient to conclude that:- 1.) DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘A’ (Blood sample of Sumit) of case SFSL/DLH/5393/BIO/1243/23(FM) is found to be matching with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘2a’ (Pant) of case SFSL/DLH/5393/BIO/1243/23. 2.) DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘B’ (Blood sample of “A”) of the case SFSL/DLH/5393/BIO/1243/23(FM) is found to be not matching with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘2a’ (Pant) of case SFSL/DLH/5393/BIO/1243/23.”1 5. Mr. Thareja’s principal submission is that the statements of the prosecutrix contain only vague allegations and do not specifically implicate the applicant. According to him, whether her testimony ultimately satisfies the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is an issue that can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence during trial. He further submits that the prosecutrix had, in fact, voluntarily accompanied “A” to a flat in Narela, where the applicant was present. In the meanwhile, the applicant has been in custody for over three years, and only 6 out of 21 witnesses have been examined. 6. Mr. Vali submits that charges have been framed by the learned Trial Court on 06.01.2024, including under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that, as per the FSL report, semen was detected on the 1 Emphasis supplied. 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 6 of 8 prosecutrix’s pants, and the DNA profile generated therefrom matched the DNA profile of the blood sample of the applicant. He also submits that prosecution has examined the prosecutrix, but the examination of her parents is presently underway. 7. In rejoinder, Mr. Thareja submits that, insofar as the evidentiary value of the FSL report is concerned, the forensic expert has not yet been examined before the learned Trial Court, and the contents thereof are a matter of trial. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, I am of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of regular bail at this stage. 9. The allegations against the applicant are of a grave nature, involving the kidnapping and repeated sexual assault of a minor. The material on record prima facie indicates that the prosecutrix was approximately 14 years and 5 months of age at the time of the alleged incident, and therefore, any purported consent on her part is of no legal consequence under the POCSO Act. The applicant, on the other hand, was a major, about 22 years of age. There was thus a significant age difference between the two. 10. At this stage, the submission that the forensic expert has not yet been examined does not, by itself, warrant any comment on the evidentiary value of the FSL report. While considering an application for bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or return findings on disputed questions bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the applicant. At this stage, the material presently available, including the FSL report indicating a DNA match between 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 7 of 8 semen detected on the prosecutrix’s pants and the blood sample of the applicant, constitutes a relevant prima facie circumstance which cannot be ignored. 11. With regard to the contention that the testimony of the prosecutrix does not specifically describe the acts allegedly committed by the applicant, Mr. Thareja drew my attention to the statement of the prosecutrix, in which she stated that she had fallen asleep after having a meal and, upon waking the following morning, experienced stomach pain and felt as though someone was doing something to her stomach and chest. However, in my view, the appreciation of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto, are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial, and the Court ought not to conduct a mini-trial at this stage. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court recently in State of U.P. v. Anurudh2. 12. The age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident, and the age gap between the prosecutrix and the applicant are both relevant factors to be considered in terms of the judgment of this Court in Dharmander Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)3. The parents of the prosecutrix have also not been examined in full. On all these counts, the present case is not an appropriate one for grant of bail to an accused under POCSO Act. 13. Equally significant is the conduct of the applicant during the course of proceedings. The status report indicates that despite repeated efforts, the investigating agency was unable to apprehend him, as he continued to evade arrest, resulting in the issuance of NBWs against him on 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40. 3 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267. 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50 BAIL APPLN. 5011/2025 Page 8 of 8 14.06.2023. He ultimately surrendered before the learned Trial Court only on 23.06.2023. In these circumstances, the apprehension that the applicant may evade the process of law, thereby frustrating the conduct of the trial, cannot be said to be unfounded, and the possibility of his absconding cannot be lightly disregarded. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant has made out a case warranting the concession of regular bail. 15. However, considering the period of custody already undergone by the applicant, the applicant shall be at liberty to make an appropriate request for expedition of proceedings before the learned Trial Court. If such a request is made, the learned Trial Court may consider the same in accordance with its own Board and the age of the matters pending before it. 16. The present bail application, alongwith pending applications, is accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. 17. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on any application that may be filed by the applicant hereafter, which shall be considered by the appropriate Court on its own merits, in accordance with law. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 13, 2026 SS/SD/ 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:50