BAIL APPLN./1743/2026 of RAMDUTT @ RAMU Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 16 October 2026

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 06/2026 of PS Punjabi Bagh for offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case, as culled out of the status report, is as follows. The subject FIR was registered on the basis of statement of prosecutrix, aged 16 years, in which she alleged that her neighbour, the present accused/applicant aged about 37 years raped her repeatedly over a period of time. GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556 9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.10.16 17:49:20 +05'30'

3. On behalf of accused/applicant, it is argued by learned counsel that before the trial court, the prosecutrix turned completely hostile to prosecution case and stated that nothing at all happened with her, therefore, the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail.

4. Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on the ground that during investigation, statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 183 BNSS in which she narrated the rape allegations.

5. It is not a case where the prosecutrix while deposing before the trial court would say that she was involved in a consensual relationship, which argument could be analysed keeping in mind her age. Here is a case in which the prosecutrix during her testimony flatly denied the alleged incident in entirety. Not only this, the prosecutrix even deposed before the trial court that she had never appeared before any judge for recording her statement, which is blatant lie, because according to prosecution, statement of prosecutrix on oath was duly recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the concerned magistrate.

6. Despite such apparent perjury, the IO opted not to take any action against the prosecutrix. On this issue, it was on an earlier date submitted by learned prosecutor that Section 22(2) of POCSO Act protects the prosecutrix, but the State was contemplating legal action against her, GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996 b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.10.16 17:49:09 +05'30'

possibly under Section 217 BNS. But even that action has not been taken.

7. The object of criminal trial is to arrive at the truth and not to ensure conviction only. The court arrives at the truth on the basis of evidence collected by the investigator and adduced by the prosecutor. Often, the criminal justice machinery is criticised for low rate of convictions, especially in cases under the POCSO Act. The investigating and the prosecuting arms of the criminal justice system always blame the witnesses for having turned hostile during trials, leading to the acquittals. But in none of those cases any action is ever taken by them. Even in a case of present nature, where during trial the prosecutrix not just deposed hostile to prosecution case, but even went to the extent of stating before the trial court that she never appeared before the concerned magistrate for recording of her statement purportedly under Section 183 BNSS, no action has been taken against her by prosecution side.

8. In the present case, it is not just the testimony of the prosecutrix being a blatant lie and hostile to prosecution, but also the total disinterest exhibited by prosecution to take appropriate action, which at this stage would convey to this court that the entire prosecution case was prima facie false and the accused/applicant suffered illegal confinement in custody. However, I must also add a cautious rider that the above observations have been recorded only while analysing the rival case for grant or denial of bail. These observations shall not be read by the trial court to the prejudice of the GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af39 62c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4 0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.10.16 17:48:58 +05'30'

prosecution side. The trial court shall independently evaluate the material on record and shall arrive at final decision at conclusion of trial.

9. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) OCTOBER 16, 2026/ry

GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.10.16 17:48:44 +05'30'