BAIL APPLN./1987/2026 of ANWAR ALI Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 25 September 2026

O R D E R

1. The applicant/petitioner herein seeks regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 301/2019 registered at P.S. Kishangarh, New Delhi, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

2. Vide order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P/7), charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 376AB read with Section 120B IPC, Section 354 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

3. At the time of the alleged offence, the victim was about 03 years old and the petitioner was about 42 years old. The petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2019. As per the nominal roll, he has been in custody for more than 7 years.

4. The petitioner’s earlier bail application, i.e., BAIL APPLN. 583/2026, was disposed of as not pressed vide order dated 23.03.2026, which reads as under:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 07 years. It is submitted that the trial has not yet been concluded and there is no certainty as to the time that would be consumed in completing the trial.

6. It is further submitted that there are internal contradictions in the case of the prosecution. Learned APP for the State opposes the present application.

7. Learned APP for State submits that, pursuant to the order dated 23.03.2026, whereby the petitioner’s earlier bail application was disposed of, the statement of the victim came to be recorded on 11.07.2026. It is pointed out that the victim’s statement corroborates the case of the prosecution.

8. No doubt, the petitioner has been in custody for more than 07 years. However, the following factors weigh with this Court:-

Conclusion

i. The alleged offence is against a child aged 03 years. It is amongst the gravest offences known to law. Section 376AB IPC prescribes a minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years.

ii. The charges having been framed, the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would operate, as observed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dharmander Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267.

iii. As per the status report, and as submitted by the learned APP, the victim as well as her mother have deposed and supported the case of the prosecution. The testimony of the victim, who, was about 03 years old when the offence was allegedly committed, reveals the obnoxious nature of the alleged offence.

iv. Considering that the victim’s family is of modest means and has had difficulty in attending the Court, the risk of the remaining witnesses being influenced cannot be ruled out. v. The period undergone by the petitioner in custody is well short of the minimum sentence.

9. For the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the recording of statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses, and endeavour to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today.

10. Once the depositions of the victim’s father and of the person who prepared the video (which allegedly depicts the offence) have been recorded, it shall be open to the petitioner to apply afresh.

11. The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/uk,sd

SACHIN DATTA, J