The High Court of Delhi refused bail to the petitioner accused of penetrative sexual assault on a mentally challenged 13-year-old girl. The court noted strong prosecution evidence including victim testimony, DNA matches, and a recovered video.
Bail application dismissed; applicant remains in judicial custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Date of Decision : 04.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANIL @ BUNTY ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Jai Ram Garg, Advocate. versus
STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State with SI Nishu Sangwan, PS South Rohini
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
Bail Appl.2768/2019 Page 1 of 3
Bail Appl.2768/2019 Page 2 of 3
penetrative sexual assault upon the child victim, who was about 13 years of age. The child victim has been examined; she has identified the applicant and also supported the prosecution case against him. Corroborative evidence in terms of the recovered video as well as the positive DNA report also point out to the guilt of the applicant.
( MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE
December 04, 2019/ sa
Bail Appl.2768/2019 Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case involving penetrative sexual assault under Section 376D IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the presence of DNA evidence and a corroborating video recording negates the necessity of bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil @ Bunti
State
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
