$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 647/2026 MOHD KASHAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sundeshwar Lal and Ms. Anita Kamath, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 28.07.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 CR.P.C) r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 CR.P.C) seeking grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No.62/2019 registered at PS Kishangarh qua the offence punishable under Section 376/342/506/174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] and 4/8/12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act”]. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, there are various inconsistencies between the prosecution story and the material, which has been collected so far. He has taken this 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:24 Court to the statement of the victim, which was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that the same does not corroborate with the statement which has been given before the Court. He also points out that the alleged inconsistencies in the place on incident, time duration and the fact that there was no window, whereas, the case of the brother of the prosecutrix/ victim is that he saw from the window. He further submits that there were some dues of painting work, which was demanded and owing to the same, the FIR in question was registered. Learned counsel for the applicant thus contends that bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 10.02.2022, he is entitled for grant of regular bail. 3. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant are vehemently opposed by the learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the victim. It is contended that the allegations against the applicant are grave and are duly supported by sufficient material available on record. It is further submitted that the witnesses examined thus far have supported the prosecution case. The victim was approximately 10 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. It is also pointed out that only five prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, and the trial has reached the final stage of completion. 4. Besides the aforesaid, it is also contended that the applicant did not co-operate with the investigation and he after being declared a proclaimed offender, was arrested. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the record. 6. The prosecution story would indicate that on the complaint 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:24 brother of the victim the FIR in question was got registered. It was alleged that on 04.03.2019, the applicant when was working as a labourer of the white washing work of the victim’s family, he saw his sister being sexually harassed by the present applicant. It was his case that his sister, who was aged about 10 years at the time of the incident, was mentally weak. When he heard the noise of the door closing on the second floor, he went up and saw that Room No.202 was locked from inside, then he pushed the door. Since the door was not opening, he got suspicious and looked from the window and saw that the present applicant-accused was with his sister and the accused made his sister touching his private part. It is further alleged that on seeing this, the complainant shouted and got the door opened and then he slapped the accused and rescued his sister. It is, thereafter, the investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was submitted. 7. The principles governing the grant of bail have been succinctly summarised by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.1, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 it has been consistently held that grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception; that the presumption of innocence continues until conviction; and that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial without subjecting him to unnecessary pre-trial incarceration. 8. 8. The power to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is undoubtedly wide; however, such discretion is required to be 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:24 exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.5, the Supreme Court held that the Court must satisfy itself that there exist prima facie or reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the alleged offence, while bearing in mind the likelihood of the accused obstructing the course of justice or evading trial. It was further held that a detailed appreciation of the evidence is impermissible at the stage of bail, such issues being matters for trial. 9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the applicant neither surrendered nor cooperated with the investigation and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender. He came to be arrested only on 10.02.2022. The learned Trial Court has also observed, in paragraph 10 of the order dated 17.12.2025, that the alleged inconsistencies relied upon by the applicant are matters to be adjudicated during trial and cannot, at this stage, constitute a ground for grant of regular bail. 10. Further, the statements of the victim, the complainant and the victim's sister-in-law (Bhabhi) have already been recorded and they have supported the prosecution case. The victim was about 10 years of age at the time of the incident and was a child with special needs. In these circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that the material on record cannot be said to disclose a false or concocted prosecution case so as to warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant at this stage 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mere fact of the applicant's incarceration since 10.02.2022, 5 (2020) 2 SCC 118 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:24 by itself, does not entitle him to the grant of regular bail 12. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 28, 2026 Nc/SA 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 01/08/2026 at 10:47:24