$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4524/2025 SU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat (DHCLSC) with Ms. Karnika Singh, Mr. Naman Aggarwal & Mr. Eishan, Advs. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. SI Sapana Sharma PS Chhawla. Mr Rajesh Mishra (DHLAC), Mrs Anita R Mishra , Me Nishchay Dutt, Ms Adhya Pandit, Advs. for Victim and the Victim through VC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. This application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.386/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 75/351(2)/3(5) of BNS and Sections 23 & 10/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 [POCSO Act] registered at Police Station Chhawla, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:33 allegations levelled against the applicant are inherently improbable and have been falsely made. It is submitted that the accused namely, Lokesh Kumar, has already been enlarged on regular bail. 3. It is further contended that the prosecution case suffers from material inconsistencies. According to the prosecution itself, the prosecutrix had disclosed the alleged incidents to her father in July 2025, however, the father instead lodged a complaint against the co-accused under the provisions of the 40(B) of Delhi Excise Act. Learned counsel submits that such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution narrative. 4. He additionally submits that the alleged incidents are stated to have commenced in the year 2018, whereas, the FIR came to be registered only in the year 2025. According to the applicant, such an extraordinary delay, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, renders the prosecution story doubtful and indicates that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast arising out of inter se family disputes and personal vendetta. He, thus, contends that this is a fit case for anticipatory bail. 5. These submissions are opposed by learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel who appears for the victim/prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has also joined through video conferencing. 6. It is their contention that bearing in mind the provisions of POCSO as well as the seriousness of the allegations and the provisions of POCSO, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 7. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 8. A bare perusal of the complaint which is basis of the FIR in question would prima facie establish the complicity of the applicant, the mother of 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:33 the victim. In the complaint, she has clearly stated that the applicant used to ask her to remain silent and scolded her and even threatened her to kill. 9. The applicant allegedly facilitated the offence of sexual assault. In concluding paragraph, the Trial Court has assigned the following reasons to reject the applicant’s bail application: “The allegations made by the child victim against the applicant / accused arc grave in nature that despite being mother, she not only allegedly facilitated the offence of sexual assault with the child victim, but also allegedly shielded the accused and even threatened the child victim. The child victim has stated repeatedly and categorically that whenever she used to tell the applicant / accused i.e. her mother, qua the acts of the accused, the applicant / accused used to ask her to remain silent and scolded her and even threatened her to kill her. Moreover, the co-accused Lokesh Kumar is already in judicial custody for past around 20 days and the investigation of the present case is still going on and being the mother of the child victim, the applicant / accused can easily inte1fere in the investigation of the present case, thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting any further upon the merits or demerits of the case, the application seeking grant of anticipatory bail, filed on behalf of applicant / accused Su is dismissed.” 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid findings would indicate that the allegations against the present applicant are not merely of passive omission but of active complicity, inasmuch as she is alleged to have repeatedly discouraged the child victim from disclosing the acts of sexual abuse, threatened her with dire consequences and thereby facilitated the commission as well as the continuation of the alleged offences. The material collected during the course of investigation, including the statement of the child victim, prima facie supports the prosecution case. The apprehension expressed by the Trial Court that, being the mother of the victim, the applicant is in a position to influence the victim and interfere with 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:33 ongoing investigation also cannot be said to be unfounded. 11. In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr.1, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the first and foremost consideration while deciding an application for anticipatory bail is whether a prima facie case exists against the accused, followed by the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment. The Supreme Court further clarified that mere absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation cannot, by itself, be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail, and that where serious allegations disclose a prima facie case, the Court ought not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the accused. 12. Having considered the submissions made by the applicant and the prosecution, the Court finds that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. The arguments made by the applicant that he has been falsely implicated and there are many inconsistencies in the FIR, they will have to be considered during the course of trial. The same cannot be a reason at this stage to discard the allegations made in the present complaint. 13. In view of the reasons, the application stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 24, 2026 Ab/SS 1 (2022) 17 SCC 391. 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:33