The Delhi High Court, while refusing to grant regular bail to an accused in a serious case of sexual assault on a minor, held that in such sensitive matters, where the prosecutrix’s testimony is consistent, clear, and cogent, the accused is not entitled to bail.
The Court observed that,
“This Court is of the opinion that the mere fact that the alleged incident occurred during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic cannot, by itself, be a ground to presume that the offence could not have been committed or to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix. This Court also takes note of the undisputed fact that the prosecutrix was of tender age, being about 12-13 years at the relevant time. She has consistently supported the prosecution case and has clearly described the manner in which the incident of sexual assault took place in her statement to the police, her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, as well as in her testimony before the learned trial court.”
The order was passed by Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dismissing the bail application filed by accused Vicky Kashyap in a case registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi, under Sections 342, 376(2)(i)(n), 354(C), 505-II of the IPC and Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution, on 24 September 2021, the accused lured a 12-13 year-old minor girl to a room on the pretext of conversation and later on sexually assaulted her. The incident came to light when the prosecutrix’s mother searched for her daughter, and reached the accused’s premises. Subsequently, she was rescued by her family members.
Based on the medico legal case, counselling report and the written complaint of the prosecutrix, an FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is pending.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused has been in judicial custody since September 2021. It was also contended that the prosecution’s case is based entirely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which is alleged to suffer from material contradictions, inconsistencies and subsequent embellishments, giving rise to a strong apprehension that she may have been tutored by her mother.
It was further argued that there was an unexplained delay of several hours in placing the Police Control Room call as well as in the registration of the FIR, which also casts doubt on the prosecution version.
It was further contended that the medical evidence does not indicate any signs of sexual assault and that the allegation regarding videography of the alleged sexual acts is unreliable, as no inculpatory evidences was recovered from the accused’s mobile phone.
The defence further levelled serious allegations against the prosecutrix, asserting that the accused was in an agreed physical relationship with her mother and that he had been extending financial support to the family. It was contended that this allegedly gave rise to animosity on the part of the prosecutrix, resulting in a false implication.
The counsel for the applicant also submitted that the alleged incident, according to the prosecution, occurred in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic, a period marked by movement restrictions and limited social interaction. As a result, making it very unlikely that such an incident would happen.
However, the High Court observed that the mere fact that the alleged incident took place during the Covid-19 period, the absence of specific injuries in the medical examination report, or a delay of a few hours in the registration of the FIR, cannot independently be treated as decisive factors while considering the instant bail application.
The Court specifically restated that,
“…………..this Court is of the opinion that the mere fact that the alleged incident occurred during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic cannot, by itself, be a ground to presume that the offence could not have been committed or to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix.”
The High Court noted that the prosecutrix has consistently supported the prosecution’s case in her statement to the police, her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, and also her testimony before the Trial Court.
The Court also observed that the accused’s familiarity with the prosecutrix and her family members, and the fact that the prosecutrix used to address the accused as “chacha”, prima facie indicates abuse of a position of trust.
It refused to disbelieve the testimony of the minor merely based on allegations regarding the conduct of her mother or her alleged relationship with the accused.
Ultimately, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the tender age of the prosecutrix (i.e. 12 years at the time of incident) and the consistency of her statements, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
The Court also expressed serious concern over disclosure of the identity of the prosecutrix in sexual offence cases and directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure strict compliance with the law, observing that,
“……….to sensitise all SHOs under his jurisdiction to strictly ensure that the name, parentage, or address of a victim of sexual assault is not disclosed in any status report or document filed before the Courts.”
Case: Vicky Kashyap vs State of NCT of Delhi
Date of Order: 14.01.2026
See Order: Vicky Kashyap vs State of NCT of Delhi
