The Delhi High Court in October 10, 2025 granted bail to a 29-year old Peon who was accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl child. Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that while the allegations were serious, the purpose of deciding bail is to determine whether the accused needs to remain in custody at this stage, not to decide guilt.
The petitioner sought bail from an FIR registered at P.S Kotla Mubarakpur wherein he was accused of sexual assault to a four-year old girl under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 and 21 of POCSO Act. During the investigation biological samples were collected in the medical examination but the CCTV footage did not show the classroom where the alleged assault occurred and the FSL report too, showed no connection between the petitioner and the victim. While the co-accused teacher was questioned, only the petitioner was arrested by the police and the investigation concluded with the filing of a chargesheet. The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, had no criminal record, and was the sole breadwinner of his family. He also emphasized that there were several gaps in the evidence which led to this arrest such as the CCTV footage, lack of DNA in FSL report and absence of Test Identification Parade. The prosecution argued that the offence was grace, involving a child of tender age and the applicant had already abused his position of trust. They further relied on the child’s statements and identification of the applicant, asserting that releasing him would risk witness harassment and tampering of evidence.
The Court, after examining the evidence, noted that the child did not identify the petitioner during her deposition, the CCTV footage did not cover the classroom where the alleged incident occurred, and the FSL report showed no DNA match. It further clarified that statements under Section 161 CrPC were not substantive evidence, leaving the question of identification unresolved. Therefore, considering that the trial was underway, the chargesheet had been filed, key witnesses had already been examined, and the petitioner had no prior criminal record, the Court found prima facie doubt regarding his involvement in the case. Therefore, the Court granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond of ?25,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to strict conditions. These conditions included maintaining distance from the school and the victim, cooperating with the investigation, refraining from tampering with evidence, and appearing before the Trial Court as and when directed. The petitioner was also required to provide his residential address and notify the Investigating Officer of any changes, share an active mobile number within 48 hours of release, and report to the concerned police station on the first, second, and fourth Fridays of every month, without being kept waiting for more than an hour. Additionally, in the event of any new FIR, DD entry, or complaint, the respondents retained the right to file an application for cancellation of bail. The Court emphasized that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial’s outcome. Accordingly the Court granted bail with these conditions and disposed of all pending applications.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner- Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Sahibe Alam and Ms. Shreya Thakur, Advocates
For the Respondents- Ms. Kamna Vohra, Ms. Bindita Chaturvedi and Mr. Amar Lal, Advocates for Complainant. Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Kirandeep, PS-Kotla Mubarakpur.
