Delhi High Court: An application was filed by the accused seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 64(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) stating that he and the victim were friends. A Single Judge Bench of Swarna Kanta Sharma, J., held that even if they were friends, friendship did not give any license to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her and beat her mercilessly. Accordingly, the Court rejected the application.
Background
In the present case, the minor victim aged about 17 years alleged that in June 2025, the accused, who lived in her neighborhood, took her to his friend’s house and had forcibly sexually assaulted her several times.
The victim tried to contact her friend but before she could disclose the incident, the police had arrived and taken her to the police station, where her family was also present. Out of fear, she had not revealed the details of sexual assault and had refused medical examination. She had further alleged that the accused had threatened to kill her if she told anyone about what had happened.
In July 2025, she disclosed the incident to her mother, following which they approached the police, and the FIR was registered.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the accused’s contentions regarding delay in lodging the FIR or discrepancy regarding the date of the missing report of the victim could not be conceded to at this stage as the same was a matter of trial. Further, the Court specified that it was owing to the fear and trauma of the said incident that the complainant had initially resisted disclosing the incident to her parents, until July 2025 when she mustered courage to inform her mother.
The Court opined that being a minor, she was under trauma and a sense of shame that had precluded her from disclosing anything to her parents and the police, as evidenced from her statement that she did not want to be medically examined in presence of her parents or inform the police about it, while her parents were present. Further, the Court pointed that the Medico-Legal Certificate of the victim revealed the presence of a linear bruise under the left eye of the victim, besides a mild abrasion (0.5 cm) on posterior fourchette and a broken hymen.
The Court rejected the accused’s contention that he and the victim were friends, which made it the case of a consensual relationship. The Court opined that even if the parties concerned were friends, friendship did not give any license to the accused to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her in his friend’s house and beat her mercilessly.
The Court noted the accused was yet to join the investigation, despite his anticipatory bail application having been either withdrawn or rejected on four occasions in the past. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present anticipatory bail application.
[Sumit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 4008 of 2025, decided on 17-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Accused: Hitesh Thakur and Shubham Tyagi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
