BAIL APPLN. 3880/2026 $~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010438392026 + BAIL APPLN. 3880/2026 & CRL.M.As. 28660-28662/2026 SUKHENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Padora and Mr. Aakash Kumar, Advocates. [M:9599605626] versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP. SI Dhananjay Gupta, PS Kirti Nagar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 36/2018, dated 28.01.2018, registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, District West, Delhi, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. 2. I have heard Mr. Vikas Padora, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner previously filed a bail application before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2026. The prosecution had filed a reply to the bail application before the Sessions Court, which has not been placed on record by the petitioner before this Court in present bail application, despite practice directions to this effect. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:55:32 BAIL APPLN. 3880/2026 Instead, an application [CRL.M.A. 28662/2026] has been filed, seeking exemption from filing the status report, on the grounds that it has been lost by the petitioner in jail, hence the petitioner is not in a position to file the same. However, there is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why a certified copy of the same could not be obtained. 4. Be that as it may, Ms. Arya has handed up a copy of the status report dated 21.02.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record. 5. The prosecution case, as it emerges therefrom, is that the subject FIR was registered upon a complaint by the victim’s father on 28.01.2018, stating that his four-year-old daughter was missing. Analysis of CCTV footage revealed that one of the co-accused, Parvati Verma, was taking the victim with her. Subsequent camera analysis at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal revealed that the victim was with Parvati Verma, and two other individuals, later identified as the petitioner herein and another co-accused, Anand Saraf. On 09.02.2018, the victim was recovered from the house of Anand Saraf, pursuant to his disclosure statement, in which he stated, inter alia, that he had “purchased” the victim from Parvati Verma and the petitioner. 6. It is further recorded therein that, after completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed, and on 17.09.2018, charges have been framed against all accused under Sections 366/344/370A/376/109/120B of IPC, and Sections 6/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by the Sessions Court. 7. The principal ground on which bail is sought is that the petitioner has been incarcerated for a prolonged period of over eight and a half years, and that he is not the person from whom the victim was recovered. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:55:32 BAIL APPLN. 3880/2026 Mr. Padora contends that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case, solely on account of his acquaintance with Anand Saraf. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Arya opposes the grant of bail, despite the petitioner’s length of incarceration, on the ground of seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner, and the stage of proceedings. She submits that the trial is now at the fag-end, with only one prosecution witness remaining to be examined, being the Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. Ms. Arya has also drawn my attention to an order of this Court dated 19.08.2026, wherein bail application of co-accused Parvati Verma, i.e. BAIL APPLN. 3399/2026 [Parvati Verma v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.], was disposed of with the following observations: “3. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, that only one witness remains to be examined, and no other witness is proposed to be called by the prosecution. 4. I am also informed that the proceedings are next scheduled for 07.09.2026, and the last prosecution witness has been summoned. 5. In view of the fact that the trial is at the fag-end, Mr. Amjad Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, does not press the present application, but seeks directions for expeditious conclusion of proceedings. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is requested to ensure that proceedings are concluded as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Chauhan assures the Court that the prosecution will also cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.” 10. I am informed that the last prosecution witness could not be examined on 07.09.2026, as the concerned Presiding Officer of the Court 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 18/09/2026 at 10:55:32 BAIL APPLN. 3880/2026 was on leave, and that the case has now been fixed for examination of the last prosecution witness on 29.09.2026. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail, at this stage. 12. Although the period of incarceration is doubtless one of the factors to be taken into account in considering an application for bail, the offences with which the petitioner is charged carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Further, the trial is now at the fag-end, with only the last prosecution witness remaining to be examined. As noted above, the case concerns allegations of child trafficking of a four-year-old girl by the petitioner and co-accused. The nature of the alleged offence and the stage of trial, where the proceedings are on the verge of conclusion, do not lend themselves to release of the petitioner on bail. Although analysis of evidence is not called for in a bail application, suffice it to state that the prosecution relies upon the CCTV analysis, allegedly showing the petitioner and co-accused, alongwith the victim, at the bus terminal. 13. The petition, alongwith pending applications, is dismissed, in view of the aforesaid. 14. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/‘pv’/MK/ 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 18/09/2026 at 10:55:32