$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2186/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20792/2026 MAYANK HARI KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Hansaraman, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for Prosecutrix SI Meeta, PS Mukherjee Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') the applicant seeks grant of regular bail, in FIR No. 132/2026 registered under Sections 64(1), 61(2), 74, 115(2), 127(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. 3. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 132/2026 was registered at Police Station- Mukherjee Nagar under Sections 64(1), 61(2), 74, 115(2), 127(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix was acquainted with the applicant and, on being called to meet him, reached the place where the co-accused allegedly took her to an OYO hotel and committed rape upon her. It is alleged that the applicant had facilitated 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 23/07/2026 at 11:37:45 commission of the offence by introducing the prosecutrix to the co-accused. 4. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 15.04.2026 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an application for grant of regular bail before the learned Trial Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2026. Hence, the present application seeking grant of regular bail before this court. 5. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.06.2026, this Court granted custody parole to the applicant to enable him to appear in his examinations scheduled on 09.06.2026, 12.06.2026 and 13.06.2026. However, as per the report received from the Jail Superintendent, the applicant expressed his unwillingness to avail the said custody parole and submitted a written application stating that he did not wish to appear in the aforesaid examinations. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young student pursuing B.A. (English Hons.) from Delhi University, has clean antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. He further submits that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and that the allegations against him are based on hearsay, there being no direct evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no recovery has been effected from the applicant, his custodial interrogation is no longer required, and he has cooperated with the investigation throughout. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the CCTV footage, photographs of the alleged place of occurrence and the WhatsApp chats exchanged between the parties demonstrate that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the co-accused, thereby contradicting 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 23/07/2026 at 11:37:45 prosecution version. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged under the influence of the prosecutrix family and suffers from material inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix while rejecting the applicant’s bail application. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions: a. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576 b. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 c. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 d. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500 e. Rajinder Rajan (Dr) v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 802 f. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799 g. Jitender v. State, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1297 h. Pardeep Kumar v. Union Admn., (2006) 10 SCC 608 i. Siyaram v. The State (NCT of Delhi), order dated 07.02.2026 by HMJ Saurabh Banerjee j. Pahalman Budha Magar v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 DHC 507 k. Sunil Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 DHC 1242 11. Learned APP for the State has placed on record the Status Report and opposes the present bail application. As per the Status Report, the prosecutrix has supported the allegations levelled in the FIR in her statement recorded 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 23/07/2026 at 11:37:45 under Section 183 BNSS and has specifically alleged that the applicant had assisted the co-accused in planning the commission of the alleged offences. 12. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix opposes the present bail application and submits that the present case pertains to gang rape involving grave and heinous offences. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix continues to suffer from depression as a consequence of the incident and is presently undergoing counselling through the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA). 13. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the allegations against the applicant are grave and pertain to serious offences. A perusal of the complaint dated 14.04.2026 reveals that the prosecutrix had specifically named the present applicant in her initial complaint itself. It is also noticed from the Nominal Roll that the applicant has remained in judicial custody for approximately two months. The relevant portion of the complaint dated 14.04.2026 is extracted hereinunder: “That on 12.04.2026, when I was about to leave my house to accompany Mayank for going to the Gaming Complex at Yamuna Vihar, at that time Mayank had called me up and told me that as some guests had arrived at his house, he could not accompany me. He further told me that Parvesh would take me to the Gaming Complex and, when I somewhat hesitated, Mayank told me that he would also join them after some time at the Gaming Complex. On the assurances and promises of Mayank, I agreed to accompany Parvesh to the Gaming Complex at Yamuna Vihar….. XXX ……Then Parvesh told Himanshu that, ‘iski tabiyat 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 23/07/2026 at 11:37:45 kharab ho rahi hai, kahin ye mar hee naa jaye, isliye isko aaj chhod dete hai, aur phir kabhi dekhenge’ and Parvesh further said, ‘Mayank ko bhi ye baat bata dete hain.” 14. The contention of the applicant that he was not present at the place of occurrence does not, at this stage, persuade this Court to grant bail. The specific allegation against the applicant is that he facilitated the commission of the offence by inducing the prosecutrix to accompany the co-accused. Therefore, his absence from the place of occurrence, by itself, cannot be said to absolve him of the allegations levelled against him. In view of the nature of the allegations and the material placed on record, this Court does not find any ground to grant regular bail to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on certain judgments in support of his contentions. This Court has carefully considered the said decisions. However, this Court is of the view that the said judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not advance the case of the applicant, the facts and circumstances of the present case being materially different. 15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 16. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 21, 2026/ys/RM 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 23/07/2026 at 11:37:45