$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010275482026 + BAIL APPLN. 2432/2026 SUMIT MANN .....Applicant Through: Mr. Pradeep Rana, Mr. Tushar Rohemetra, Ms. Riya Rana, Mr. Devansh Jain and Mr. Jai Gupta, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI) AND. ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Chahar Chaudhary, APP for the State. SI Ankit, PS: Adarsh Nagar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. The applicant, by way of the instant application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.124/2026 dated 13.03.2026, registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)/323/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, the complainant and the applicant were known to each other since the year 2018 and, according to the FIR, the applicant established physical relations with the complainant on 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 the false pretext of marriage. It is alleged that when the complainant sought to formalise the relationship, the applicant evaded the issue. In December 2020, apprehending disclosure of the relationship, the applicant threatened self-harm and to circulate the complainant’s private photographs, on account of which the complainant states that she was constrained to obtain a divorce from her then-husband; and that the applicant nevertheless solemnised his own marriage on 17.01.2024. 3. It is further alleged that upon the complainant’s remarriage being fixed in February 2025, the applicant circulated her private photographs to her prospective family, causing the alliance to be called off, and thereafter continued to threaten and stalk her, culminating in the complaint dated 13.03.2026 and registration of the present FIR. 4. The applicant was arrested on 14.03.2026 and has remained in judicial custody since thereafter. Investigation has since been completed and the chargesheet stands filed for offences under Sections 376/323/506/509 IPC and Section 78 BNS. Two applications for regular bail preferred by the applicant before the Trial Court; the first before filing of the chargesheet, and the second after the chargesheet, came to be dismissed vide orders dated 28.04.2026 and 03.06.2026 respectively, essentially on the ground of the gravity of the allegations and the stage of investigation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. He submits that the applicant and the complainant were both working in government departments, the applicant with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the complainant with 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 the Delhi Police; and that the allegations pertain to a relationship between the parties in which physical relations were maintained, according to the applicant, on a consensual basis. It is submitted that the applicant and the complainant have since settled their disputes amicably and have decided to move an application for quashment of the FIR, and that pending that exercise, the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant states that the complainant has no objection to the grant of bail. Mr. Naresh Chahar Chaudhary, learned APP for the State, has, however, strongly opposed the prayer. It is contended that the machinery of the State has been made to run its full course; that there is material on record against the applicant; and that the applicant was found, during investigation, to have harassed the complainant on more than one occasion. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and has perused the record. 8. At the outset, it may be noticed that at the time of the incidents forming the subject matter of the FIR, the applicant was married, while the complainant was unmarried; it is only after registration of the FIR that the complainant has married. Without commenting upon the merits of the rival contentions, what is material for the present purpose is that the investigation stands completed and the chargesheet already stands filed before the Trial Court. 9. It is well settled that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. The Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 Punjab1, while considering the ambit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, held that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, courts must be wary of imposing restrictions upon the exercise of that liberty which are not to be found in the statute itself, and that an individual seeking bail, not having been convicted of the offence for which he is sought to be tried, is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence. The underlying rationale of that decision, though rendered in the context of Section 438, informs the approach to be adopted while considering an application for regular bail as well. Relevant para of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) is reproduced as under:- “Since the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty; Courts should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, when no such restrictions are imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section... Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who has not been convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail and who must therefore be presumed to be innocent.” 10. The Supreme Court, in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh2, reiterated the same fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence in the following terms:- “2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty... Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception... 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, 1(1980) 2 SCC 565. 2(2018) 3 SCC 22. 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.” 11. The factors which ordinarily weigh with a court while considering an application for regular bail have been enumerated by the Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee3, where it was observed: “9. ... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” 12. Similarly, once investigation stands concluded and the chargesheet has been filed, continued incarceration of an undertrial, without more, tends towards pre-trial punishment, a proposition explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation4 in the following terms:- “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.” 13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the record shows that the applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of Delhi, 3(2010) 14 SCC 496. 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 employed as a Government servant; that his identity and antecedents are on record and are not disputed; that the investigation, including collection of documentary and electronic material, stands concluded; and that the chargesheet has already been filed before the learned Trial Court. On the applicant's own showing, and as recorded even by the learned Trial Court, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is stated to be required 14. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that while declining the applicant's second bail application, the Trial Court, vide order dated 03.06.2026, had taken serious note of allegations levelled by the complainant regarding continuing threats, and of certain lacunae in the investigation. Those observations were made prior to the settlement now being pressed before this Court and the complainant’s categorical statement, that she has no objection to the applicant being released on bail. This altered circumstance, namely, the resolution of the dispute between the parties and the complainant’s own present stand bears directly upon the necessity of continued custody, even though it cannot by itself determine the outcome of the trial. 15. A similar situation arose before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Randhir Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, where regular bail was granted in a case involving allegations under Section 376 IPC/BNS, in circumstances where the prosecutrix had recorded her consent and no-objection to the grant of bail, and investigation stood substantially completed. The Court, after examining the rival contentions, held as under:- 4(2012) 1 SCC 40 52026:DHC:4885. 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 33. The court has considered the rival submissions of the parties. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the present petition has been filed seeking regular bail and not for adjudication of the prosecution case on merits. At this stage, the court is required to assess whether continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary having regard to the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations, the material collected after investigation, tested on the well-settled principles governing grant of bail. 34. Insofar as the offence which is the subject matter of the FIR is concerned, the record placed before this court shows that the applicant and the prosecutrix are both major. The record also shows that the prosecutrix has now stated that she does not oppose the grant of bail to the applicant; and she has also furnished her consent and ‘no-objection’ to the quashing of the FIR in its entirety. 35. This court is conscious that in offences alleging rape or sexual assault, the consent of the prosecutrix to grant of bail or even her support to a settlement, cannot by itself be dispositive of the matter. At the same time, the stand taken by the prosecutrix is undoubtedly a relevant circumstance while assessing the necessity of continued custody of the accused, particularly where the parties are both adults and are supposed to have been in a relationship for several years, and the prosecutrix does not appear, at least from the circumstances, to be a vulnerable individual. [Emphasis Supplied] 16. This Court in Randhir Kumar (supra) went on to grant bail upon being satisfied that the triple test stood fulfilled and that investigation was, for all practical purposes, complete, while expressly clarifying that nothing in the order was to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending trial. That approach applies with equal force to the case at hand. 17. The present order is confined to the question of regular bail alone and expresses no view whatsoever on the maintainability or merits of any application for quashment that the parties may choose to move; that application, if and when filed, will have to be examined independently and on its own merits, uninfluenced by anything observed herein. 18. Having regard to the fact that investigation is complete and 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15 chargesheet has been filed, that the applicant has clean antecedents and is stated to have deep roots in society, that the complainant herself, has recorded no objection to the grant of bail, and that the possibility of the applicant influencing the course of the trial stands correspondingly diminished in view of the settlement between the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. After settlement, the possibility of conviction is very remote. 19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 20. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 17, 2026/p 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 20/08/2026 at 14:58:15