$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010188892026 + BAIL APPLN. 1690/2026 AMAN YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr.Avdhesh Kumar, Advocates. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.08.2026 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) seeking grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No.123/2023 registered at PS Nabi Karim, Delhi qua the offence punishable under Sections 376/377/323/506/509/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) and 6/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant. The applicant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 3 years and 5 months. Out of the 30 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 4 witnesses have been examined so far, including the prosecutrix/victim and her mother. 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 10:56:57 It is further submitted that there is no reasonable apprehension that the applicant would influence the witnesses or otherwise prejudice the fair conduct of the trial. 3. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP for the State, opposing the present application, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and relate to sexual offences allegedly committed against a minor. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the relevant time and that the prosecution case is supported, inter alia, by her statements, the hotel records and other material collected during investigation. The petitioner has been charged with serious offences under the IPC as well as the POCSO Act and that the trial is yet to be completed. It is contended that release of the petitioner on bail at this stage may expose the prosecutrix and other material witnesses to the possibility of influence or intimidation and may adversely affect the fair conduct of the trial. 4. Learned APP also submits that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of the proceedings, there is a possibility of the petitioner evading the process of law if released on bail. On these grounds, the application is opposed. 5. I have head the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. The facts of the case would indicate that on 10.03.2023, the victim gave a written complaint alleging therein that she met the applicant in December 2020 through Instagram, whereafter they started chatting with each other and became good friends. The prosecutrix further alleged that she met the applicant in person for the first time on 29th June 2021 at Bangla Sahib Gurudwara, where they had food together and thereafter went to their 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 10:56:57 respective residences. It was further alleged that, on one occasion, the applicant offered the prosecutrix to participate in live nude video calls/web shows for earning easy money. The prosecutrix further alleged that on 5th July 2021, the applicant called her to a restaurant named Kwality situated at Arakashan Road, Nabi Karim, where they had beer, and thereafter took her to a hotel and committed sexual assault upon her, while promising to marry her later. It was further alleged that the applicant repeatedly committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix on several occasions on the false promise of marriage. 7. It is trite that the object of bail is not to inflict punishment by way of 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. The same principle was reiterated in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that incarceration before conviction ought not to be punitive in character. 8. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 the Supreme Court has emphasised that prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly where the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, has to be viewed in the light of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 17/08/2026 at 10:56:57 9. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,5 held that an under trial cannot be subjected to indefinite incarceration pending trial and that, where it becomes evident that a timely conclusion of the trial is not possible and the accused has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration, constitutional Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge the accused on bail, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions governing the grant of bail. “15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under trial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that under trials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. As aptly observed by division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi),6 the Court must play the role of a “doctor” rather than a “coroner”, by protecting the right to a speedy trial before it is rendered illusory by prolonged incarceration, instead of recognising its violation after the constitutional injury has become irreversible. 11. Without commenting on the merits of the allegations, it is undisputed that the applicant has already suffered incarceration for about 3 years 5 5 (2021) 3 SCC 713 6 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623 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 10:56:57 months and the prosecutrix and her mother have already been examined. The continued incarceration of the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would have to be balanced against his fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. The trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence and only 4 out of the total 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The trial is, therefore, not likely to conclude in the near future. There is no material on record to attribute the delay in conclusion of the trial to the applicant. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and his jail conduct has been reported to be satisfactory. 13. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, the Court deems it appropriate to allow the present application. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. 14. Nothing stated, hereinabove, shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The observations made herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application. The Trial Court shall adjudicate the matter independently and in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. 15. The application stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 13, 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 17/08/2026 at 10:56:57 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 10:56:57