$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010211922026 + BAIL APPLN. 1867/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24627-28/2026 CHETAN SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Vats, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Puja Saini, FRRO. Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha, DHCLSC for Victim/ Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The instant application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 160/2025, dated 23.04.2025, registered at PS Dwarka North, Delhi for the offence under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The applicant assails the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the ASJ (SFTC), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby his second application for regular bail before the Trial Court came to be dismissed. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant/prosecutrix had, on 20.04.2025, gone with her friend to attend a wedding at Paschim Vihar, 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 10:57:39 following which the group checked into Fab Hotel, Aerosky, Sector 17, Dwarka, in the early hours of the morning. It is alleged that the complainant, along with her friends, consumed alcohol in the said hotel, whereafter the complainant’s friends moved to another room, while the complainant and the applicant remained in a different room. It is alleged that the applicant, taking advantage of the complainant’s condition, committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. Upon regaining consciousness, the complainant is stated to have pushed the applicant away, locked herself in the washroom, and thereafter informed her friends of the incident. 3. The matter was reported by the complainant at the One Stop Centre, Dada Dev Hospital, on 22.04.2025, where her MLC (No. 580 dated 23.04.2025) and internal medical examination were conducted, and the exhibits collected were seized by the Investigating Officer. FIR No. 160/2025 came to be registered on 23.04.2025. The complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded before the JMFC, Dwarka Courts, on 24.04.2025. The applicant was arrested on 25.04.2025, and his disclosure statement was recorded on the same date. 4. During the investigation, notice under Section 94 BNSS was served upon the Manager, Hotel Aerosky, calling for the guest entry register, identity proofs of the occupants of Rooms 301 to 304, CCTV footage of the third-floor corridors, lobby, reception and entry/exit points, payment and billing records, and the duty roster of hotel staff. In response, the hotel management furnished a pen drive containing the available CCTV footage, together with a written reply stating, inter alia, that the hotel does not serve food or alcohol. 5. Statements under Section 180 BNSS of witnesses were 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 17/08/2026 at 10:57:39 during investigation and are stated to have supported the version of the complainant at that stage. The biological exhibits, including the SAFE kit and blood samples of the applicant and the complainant, were sent to FSL, Rohini, and the report thereof has since been placed on record along with the supplementary chargesheet. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and that there is no material to indicate his complicity in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the trial has since progressed substantially, and that material contradictions and improvements have emerged in the very testimony of the complainant/PW- 1, which dent the prosecution’s case at the threshold. 7. It is further submitted that out of 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 7 have, as of date, been examined, and that material witnesses, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7, being the very friends in whose company the complainant was present on the night of the incident, whose statements under Section 180 BNSS had, at the stage of investigation, supported the prosecution’s version, have not, upon examination before the Trial Court, supported the case of the prosecution. 8. It is further submitted that PW-2, a member of the hotel staff, has also deposed that he neither received any information from, nor any call regarding the complainant on the relevant date. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has suffered incarceration of over 1 year and 3 months as on 29.07.2026, as per the nominal roll, and that the trial, having regard to the number of witnesses remaining to be examined, is unlikely to conclude in the near future. 9. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned APP for the State 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 10:57:39 as also by learned counsel for the victim. It is submitted that the complainant/prosecutrix has, in her testimony, supported the core allegation levelled against the applicant, and that the circumstance of certain other witnesses not having supported the prosecution’s case is a matter to be appreciated only at the stage of final adjudication, upon a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence on record, and cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive at the present stage. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 1. The parameters governing the grant of regular bail in non-bailable offences are well settled. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee1, the Supreme Court held as follows: “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…” 2. The object underlying the grant of bail was authoritatively explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation2, in the following terms: “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 can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.” 3. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that bail is the rule and 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496. 2 (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 10:57:39 jail the exception. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.3, it was observed that the grant of bail must be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner, having regard to the presumption of innocence that attaches to every accused until guilt is established in accordance with law 4. The duration of incarceration and the likely progress of the trial are also material considerations at the stage of bail, and cannot be treated as subordinate merely because the offence alleged is a grave one. In State of Kerala v. Raneef4, the Supreme Court held: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?” 11. It is equally well settled that while a court considering an application for bail cannot embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence or a mini- trial, it is nonetheless required to indicate, prima facie, the reasons which weigh with it. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan5, the Supreme Court held that although a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, it is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant, or refusal, of bail. 12. Insofar as the reliability of the testimony of a witness in an offence of the present nature is concerned, the Supreme Court, in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)6, while explaining the standard expected of a “sterling witness”, held as follows: 3 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 4 (2011) 1 SCC 784. 5 (2004) 7 SCC 528. 6 (2012) 8 SCC 21. 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 10:57:39 “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.” 13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it emerges that the testimony of the complainant herself, being the central and most material witness in support of the prosecution’s case, is not free from infirmity. Her articulation of the very act constituting the offence, that “someone was trying to insert something”, sits uneasily with an unambiguous allegation of penetration; her description of the place of occurrence has varied across three distinct formulations at different stages; and her statement to the Medical Officer regarding the preservation of her clothing stands admittedly contradicted by her own testimony on oath. 14. Whether these are, in the ultimate analysis, minor discrepancies not touching the substratum of the prosecution’s case, or material contradictions going to its root, is a matter that must, and will, be tested at trial; it would be neither necessary nor appropriate for this Court, at the stage of bail, to render a definitive finding thereon. It is sufficient to observe that these are circumstances which, at the very least, dilute the prima facie threshold contemplated in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra). 15. What weighs further with this Court is that, out of the 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 7 have been examined thus far, of whom PW-5, 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 10:57:39 PW-6 and PW-7, the very friends who had accompanied the complainant on the night of the incident and whose statements under Section 180 BNSS had, at the stage of investigation, supported the prosecution’s version, have not, on oath, supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2, a member of the hotel staff, has similarly deposed in a manner that does not advance the prosecution's version. 16. It is well settled that the hostility of a witness does not ipso facto efface the case of the prosecution and remains a matter for appreciation at the stage of final adjudication; however, where such hostility occurs cumulatively, across multiple corroborative witnesses, and is coupled with independent infirmities in the testimony of the complainant herself, it constitutes a circumstance worth consideration at the stage of regular bail. 17. This Court is also not oblivious to the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; that he voluntarily surrendered before the Investigating Officer upon learning of the registration of the FIR, accompanied by his mother, and has since cooperated with the investigation; that he has suffered incarceration of over 1 year and 3 months as on 29.07.2026, as per the nominal roll; and that, having regard to the number of witnesses yet to be examined, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. These circumstances, read cumulatively with the infirmities noted above, weigh in favour of the grant of bail, consistent with the principles enunciated in Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and Raneef (supra). 18. Accordingly, bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant is directed to be enlarged on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 19. The application stands disposed of. The pending applications also 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 10:57:39 stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 13, 2026/aks/nk 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 10:57:39