$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4994/2025 PRAVEEN KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Rajore, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. IO SI Nisha PS New Usmanpur. Mr. Saumitri Pradhan, Adv. for Victim with father of the victim. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. This application has been preferred under Section 482 BNSS [erstwhile 438 Cr.P.C.]seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of the FIR No.695/2025 registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [“POCSO Act”]. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2023, at about 2:30 PM, when the victim along with her father reached home, her father climbed up the wooden staircase which led to the terrace. Behind her father, the victim’s aunt and the victim also climbed the staircase and the victim saw two unknown persons along with her uncle, Praveen Kumar [applicant herein]. After sometime, an altercation began between the victim’s father and the applicant. During this altercation, the applicant hit hard on the chest of 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 21/07/2026 at 10:54:36 victim and she fell down. This led to the registration of the present FIR. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is pointed out that full cooperation has been rendered by the applicantand after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed. He further submits that as of now, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation. 4. These submissions are strongly opposed by the learned counsel who appears for the complainant and Mr. Shoaib Haider, the learned APP who appears for the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the police did not carry out the investigation with respect to two unknown persons who were also available at the time of incident. He also submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and therefore, his custodial interrogation is necessary. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the record. 7. The brief perusal of the record indicates that the alleged incident took place on 24.07.2023. The complainant seems to have made PCR call on 24.07.2023 itself. It appears that since the FIR was not registered, the applicant had approached the Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 175(3) BNSS [erstwhile 156(3) of the Cr.P.C]. During the pendency of the said application and after calling upon the status report from the police, FIR No.695/2025 came to be registered. 8. Vide order dated 23.12.2025, the Court while issuing notice stated that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant subject to his joining investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer 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 21/07/2026 at 10:54:36 [IO]concerned. The report filed by the IO would indicate that the applicant thereafter was called upon by the IO and he appeared on all such dates. 9. It is clear from the record that after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and the matter is listed before the concerned Court. The matter is pending at the stage of framing of charge. 10. It is further admitted that the applicant and one Manoj Kumar are real brothers. The complainant in the instant case is the daughter of Manoj Kumar, therefore, she is the niece of the present applicant. The parties are already involved in civil litigation before the Civil Court. The record indicates that counter suits are pending between them. 11. The Supreme Court in SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre v. State of Maharashtra1, noted that while considering bail matters, “89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided.” [Emphasis Supplied] 12. Further, in Shaitan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,2the Supreme Court in a matter concerning similar charges allowed the anticipatory bail after considering the fact that the applicant has cooperated with the investigation. 13. Bearing in mind the overall circumstances, the nature of the allegation and the submission of the parties, the Court is inclined to grant the 1(2011) 1 SCC 694 22024 SCC OnLine SC 3717 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 21/07/2026 at 10:54:36 applicantanticipatory bail. 14. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released by the IO in case of arrest, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the IO. 15. With aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 17, 2026 Ab/SS 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 21/07/2026 at 10:54:36