Dismissed¶22

Bhola v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC10 Feb 2025BAIL APPLN./4504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; bail application dismissed; BAIL APPLN. 4504/2024; FIR No. 0242/2024 PS Kapashera dated 10.05.2024; kidnapping/sexual assault/trafficking charges (363, 376, 366(A), 370, 506, 120B, 34 IPC; POCSO S.6; ITPA 1956 Ss.3,4); judicial TIP identification of petitioner; parity with co-accused Vipul Kumar (BAIL APPL. 3700/2024, bailee 18.11.2024) distinguished; prosecutrix evidence pending; Jasmeet Singh, J.; decided 10.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Although the petitioner was admittedly not named in the FIR because the prosecutrix did not know his name, the prosecutrix identified the petitioner in judicial TIP as one of the perpetrators who committed the sexual assault. ¶18

Bhola Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Bhola should be granted bail in FIR No. 0242/2024 (PS Kapashera), in which he is charged u/s 363/376/366(A)/370/506/120B/34 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3,4 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The parity argument based on the bail granted to co-accused Vipul Kumar in BAIL APPL. 3700/2024 does not apply: Vipul Kumar was the owner of the Gujarat property where the victim was assaulted and, more importantly, was not identified in the TIP by the prosecutrix, whereas the petitioner was identified.

¶20

Key takeaways

The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the evidence of the prosecutrix is yet to be recorded; for these reasons the petition is not entertained and is dismissed.ratio¶22
Nothing stated in the order shall be considered as an opinion on the merits of the present case.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J., 10.02.2025) dismissed BAIL APPLN. 4504/2024 filed by petitioner Bhola in FIR No. 0242/2024 dated 10.05.2024, PS Kapashera, wherein he is charged u/s 363/376/366(A)/370/506/120B/34 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3,4 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The minor victim was taken by accused Rashid and Rimpa to Bombay and then Surat, Gujarat, and sexually assaulted. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR because the prosecutrix did not know his name, she identified him in judicial TIP as one of the perpetrators. The parity argument drawn from the bail granted to co-accused Vipul Kumar on 18.11.2024 in BAIL APPL. 3700/2024 was rejected — Vipul Kumar merely owned the Gujarat premises and was not identified in the TIP, unlike the petitioner. With allegations serious and the prosecutrix's evidence yet to be recorded, the petition was dismissed, the order expressly stating it is not an opinion on merits.

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 4504/2024 BHOLA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Tanishq Sirohi, Mr. Raghav Khanna, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶7

Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP with SI Aarti Yadav, PS Kapashera Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Ms. Sana Juneja, Ms. Deepshikha, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 10.02.2025

¶10

This is a petition seeking bail in FIR No. 0242/2024 under Section 363 IPC dated 10.05.2024 registered at PS Kapashera.

¶11

As per the FIR, the child victim was taken by two accused persons to Bombay and thereafter to Gujarat.

¶12

The child victim was sexually assaulted and an FIR u/s 363 IPC has been filed but the petitioner has been charged u/s 363/376/366(A)/370/506/120B/34 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3,4 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.

¶13

It is stated by Mr. Sirohi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR thus the petitioner is not guilty of the offrence.

¶14

Further, the co-accused has been granted bail on 18.11.2024 by this Court in BAIL APPL. 3700/2024.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:14:47

¶16

In the present case, the allegations are that two accused, namely Rashid and Rimpa took the minor child first to Bombay and thereafter to Surat, Gujarat. There the minor child was sexually assaulted by various persons.

¶17

Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the prosecutrix did not know the name of the petitioner.

¶18

However, the prosecutrix in judicial TIP has identified the petitioner as one of the perpetrators who had committed the sexual assault.

¶19

The difference between Vipul Kumar i.e. the person who was granted bail in BAIL APPL. 3700/2024 vis-a-vis the petitioner is that Vipul Kumar was the owner of the property in Gujarat, where the victim was sexually assaulted.

¶20