$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010001112026 + BAIL APPLN. 36/2026 VISHAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adiya Sharma, Mr. Omkar Sharma and Ms. Apoorva Bhargav, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. Mr. Prince Sharma, Advocate for Victim. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The applicant by way of the present application seeks for the regular bail in connection with FIR No. 167/2025 for offences under 137(2)/65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, registered at PS Seemapuri, Delhi 2. Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant has been in custody for approximately 17 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:50 months and, out of 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 6 witnesses have been examined so far. The testimony of the victim has already been recorded and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing or otherwise tampering with her evidence. He further submits that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and had left her parental home of her own accord. It is contended that the FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of the victim’s parents. 3. It is further submitted that, during the same period, the cousin sister of the victim had also left her parental home along with Raju, a friend of the present applicant, pursuant to which FIR No. 166/2025 came to be registered. Raju, who is an accused in the said FIR, has already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in BAIL APPLN. 30/2026. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 4. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP for the State and Mr. Prince Sharma, learned counsel who appears for the victim, opposes the present application and submits that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the victim was recovered from the company of the applicant and, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she stated that she had accompanied the applicant to Prayagraj, where she stayed with him and that the applicant had established physical relations with her. They submits that the chargesheet has already been filed and the trial is still pending. Accordingly, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations no case for bail is made out. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It is an admitted position that FIR No. 167/2025 in the present case 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:50 and FIR No. 166/2025 against accused Raju were registered contemporaneously and arise out of substantially similar facts and circumstances. Though the cases are registered separately, accused Raju, who was similarly situated, has already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 in BAIL APPLN. 30/2026. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to seek parity with the said accused and the present application can accordingly be considered on the ground of parity. 7. Even otherwise, the facts of the present case indicate that the FIR came to be registered on the complaint of the victim’s father regarding the disappearance of his minor daughter. The victim was subsequently recovered from Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, from the company of the applicant, whereafter she was medically examined and her MLC was conducted. The applicant was thereafter formally arrested in the present case. 8. It is further relevant that, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (BNSS) the victim stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant to Prayagraj, where she got married to him and thereafter stayed with him. She further stated that physical relations between them were established with her consent. While such consent, given the age of the victim, would not in law absolve the applicant of the alleged offence, the aforesaid circumstances, including the conduct of the victim and the manner in which the parties remained together, are relevant considerations at the stage of deciding the present application for bail. 9. It is trite that the object of bail is not to inflict punishment by way 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:50 pre-trial detention. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1 the Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence remains in favour of the accused and that bail is the rule, while in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 the Court delineated the relevant considerations which must guide the exercise of discretion in matters of bail. 10. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 has observed that once investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed, the continued custody of an accused without compelling reason, amounts to pre-trial punishment, which is unwarranted. Para. 21 of the said decision reads as under: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 11. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the evidentiary value of the statement of the victim, and having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, coupled with the principle of parity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 12. It is also relevant to note that the testimony of the victim has already been recorded and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing her. Further, out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only 6 witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take considerable time to 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:50 conclude. The applicant has already remained in custody for approximately 18 months. The applicant has no past criminal antecedents and his conduct during incarceration has also remained satisfactory. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. 14. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the Trial Court shall consider the matter independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. 15. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 13, 2026 aks/S.A. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:50