$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011023242025 + BAIL APPLN. 4888/2025 AYUSH KUMAR .....Applicant Through: Mr. Nishant Singh and Mr. Rajkumar Yadav, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms. Divya Bakshi, Ms. Upasna Bakshi and Mr. Gourav Singh, Advs. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Ms. Neelakshi Bhadauria and Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advs. for complainant SI-Sheetal, PS: Hauz Khas CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. By virtue of the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No.219/2025 dated 23.05.2025 registered at PS.: Hauz Khas under Section 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 2. Facts disclose that based on a complainant made by the victim on 07.05.2025, three FIRs being FIR No. 238/2025, FIR No. 216/ 2025 and the present FIR came to be registered at different Police Stations. As per the statement of the victim herein, she and the applicant were promoters at 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:18 a club in Ashoka Hotel in Janpath, whereby both of them, had made consensual physical relations around seven to eight months prior to the registration of the present FIR, whereafter the communication between them had stopped. 3. However, later when she intimated the applicant about her pregnancy, the applicant asked her to undergo medical testing. Thereafter, a few days later, they met at a night club in Samrat Hotel, Chanakyapuri, where he asked the victim not to disclose his name in relation to the pregnancy and offered to share the expense of her abortion. Subsequently, the applicant took the victim to his friend’s place at South Extension Part- II, where both of them stayed for 2-3 days and again established physical relations. 4. Investigation revealed that since the date of birth of the victim, as per her birth certificate, was 08.10.2012, she was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. However, the DNA profiling of the child of the victim and the applicant came out to be negative. 5. The charges have since been framed and prosecution evidence is underway before the learned Trial Court. 6. It is under these facts and circumstances that this Court has heard the learned counsels for the applicant and the victim, as also the learned APP and also perused the materials on record, which reveal that the victim herein is a minor girl aged below 18 years. As such, since she not only identified the applicant but has also made categoric allegations against him to the effect that he established physical relations with her on various occasions and the identity of the applicant is prima facie shown to be established during investigation, the same carry sufficient weight. 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:18 contradictions/ inconsistencies therein, if any, and/ or the credibility thereof, are all matters of trial, which cannot be gone into at this stage whence the applicant is only seeking regular bail. 7. Similarly, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar: (2017) 2 SCC 51, the issue of delay, if any, is to be assessed in the context of the trauma, fear, and social stigma often associated with sexual offences against minors. Be that as it may, considering the present FIR is relating to bodily harm, and that too of a minor girl as the victim, delay, need not be gone into by this Court at this stage. 8. Lastly, and in any event, none of the aforesaid factors can be taken in isolation, but rather have to be taken cumulatively. 9. Factually also, in the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, as on date merely ‘two’ out of ‘twenty-eight’ witnesses have been examined as yet. 10. Ergo, the present application is dismissed. 11. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved. SAURABH BANERJEE, J AUGUST 7, 2026/Ab 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:18