Dismissed¶29

Md. Jaseem v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Delhi HC26 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./3685/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court dismisses Section 439 CrPC regular bail application of Md. Jaseem (BAIL APPLN. 3685/2025, decided 26.02.2026, Saurabh Banerjee, J.). Accused in FIR 382/2024, PS Aman Vihar, under Sections 354/354(B) IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault of an eight-year-old prosecutrix; charge-sheet filed 29.07.2024; earlier ASJ bail rejection dated 03.12.2024. Bail denied given gravity of accusation, nascent trial (prosecutrix unexamined), likelihood of witness/evidence tampering, applicant's residence in same neighbourhood, and protective object of POCSO Act. Relies on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Amaramani Tripathi, Deepak Yadav, Satish Jaggi; prima facie lens only; observations limited to bail stage.

What did the court decide?

None; regular bail refused. ¶29

Md. Jaseem Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; regular bail refused.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in proceedings arising out of FIR No.382/2024 (Sections 354/354(B) IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act). +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Settled bail framework adopted: factors relevant for grant of bail include whether there is a prima facie case; nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of punishment upon conviction; danger of evidence tampering and intimidation of witnesses; stage of trial; and likelihood of offence repeating, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of grant of bail, the Court is not to venture into a meticulous analysis of the evidence or credibility of witnesses, which can only be tested through trial, but must see the case only through a prima facie lens.

¶25

Key takeaways

On the material on record, the accusations against the applicant were grave, involving aggravated sexual assault of a child of merely eight years carrying punishment up to seven years' imprisonment; the trial is at a nascent stage with the prosecutrix yet to be examined, making evidence/witness tampering a highly likely apprehension; additionally, the applicant resides in the very same neighbourhood as the prosecutrix.ratio¶26
Prima facie, granting bail to the applicant is likely to hamper the investigations and affect the trial and the overall pendency of the proceedings.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal bail — Section 439 Cr.P.C. — POCSO Act — Aggravated sexual assault of an eight-year-old child — Regular bail refused. Applicant, an accused in FIR No.382/2024 dated 10.06.2024, PS: Aman Vihar, Rohini, under Sections 354/354(B) IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act, in judicial custody for over one year nine months and pleading humanitarian grounds (newly married, infant child), sought regular bail; charge-sheet stood filed on 29.07.2024 before the learned ASJ-04 (POCSO), and his earlier bail application had been rejected vide order dated 03.12.2024. Applying the settled Supreme Court criteria (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar; State of U.P. v. Amaramani Tripathi; Deepak Yadav; Satish Jaggi) and confining itself to a prima facie view without meticulous appreciation of evidence, the Court found the accusations grave — aggravated sexual assault of a child of merely eight years punishable up to seven years — the trial nascent with the prosecutrix yet to be examined, apprehension of evidence/witness tampering highly likely, and the applicant residing in the same neighbourhood as the victim; the protective object of the POCSO Act towards children as a vulnerable group reinforced the refusal. Application dismissed; observations expressly confined to the bail adjudication with no bearing on trial merits. (Saurabh Banerjee, J.; order dated 26.02.2026)

¶1

$~7

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 3685/2025

¶4

MD. JASEEM .....Applicant

¶5

Through: Mr. Faiz Imam, Adv.

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State with SI- Kamal, PS: Aman Vihar Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Adv. for Victim/ prosecutrix.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R

¶10

% 26.02.2026

¶11

By virtue of the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C. ), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.382/2024 dated 10.06.2024 registered at PS: Aman Vihar, Rohini under Sections 354/354(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( POCSO Act ).

¶12

As per FIR, based on a statement of eight-year-old victim/ prosecutrix on 10.06.2024, the Police proceeded to register an FIR. In essence, as per her, while playing in the street, the applicant approached her and took her to a hall-like place, wherein he removed her clothes and his own pants. Since she started yelling, he ran away from the place of the incident. During investigation, the applicant was taken into judicial custody on the same date.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 28/02/2026 at 11:50:23

¶15

The charge-sheet has since been filed on 29.07.2024 before the learned ASJ-04 (POCSO), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi ( learned ASJ ). Applicant’s earlier bail application before the learned ASJ has also been rejected vide order dated 03.12.2024.

¶16

Before this Court, it is the case of the applicant that he is a lawabiding citizen with clean antecedents, who has been wrongly implicated in the present proceedings. Further, since he has been in judicial custody for over a period of one year nine months , as also is newly married with a child less than one year of age, on humanitarian grounds, he is entitled to grant of bail.

¶17

On merits, drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant submits that since even as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant had only touched the prosecutrix’s legs, as per Section(s) 7 , 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, no case is made out against the applicant. As such, the learned counsel prays that the applicant be released on bail.

¶18

Learned APP for the State has handed over a copy of the Status Report, which is taken on record. 7. Learned APP, as well as learned counsel for the prosecutrix opposing grant of bail submit that the alleged offence is serious in nature, and the case of the prosecution is fully supported by both Medical Report being MLC No.144/2024 dated 10.06.2024 conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital which records that the applicant asked the victim to remove her pant and innerwear, as well as the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where she has clearly stated that the applicant

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 28/02/2026 at 11:50:23

¶21

removed her pant. They further submit that there is CCTV footage clearly showing the applicant taking the prosecutrix to the building where the alleged incident took place, and then showing him running away from the said premises, which has also been recorded by the learned ASJ in the order dated 03.12.2024 denying bail to the applicant.

¶22

Lastly, relying upon Section 7 of the POCSO Act, learned APP as well as learned counsel for the prosecutrix submit that ‘... …any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration ... … ’ also amounts to sexual assault, and further, since the prosecutrix was only eight years old when the incident took place, Section 10 thereof is prima facie attracted. In view thereof, they submit that the present application ought to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the prosecutrix and perused the documents on record as also the Status Report. 10. The principles with regards to grant of bail are well settled. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashish Chatterjee:(2010) 14 SCC 496 , State of U.P. vs. Amaramani Tripathi:(2005) 8 SCC 21 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P.:(2022) 8 SCC 559 , factors relevant for grant of bail include whether there is a prima facie case against the applicant; nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of punishment upon conviction; danger of evidence tampering and intimidation of witnesses; stage of trial; likelihood of offence repeating. Further, as held in Satish Jaggi vs. State of Chattisgrarh & Ors.:(2007) 11 SCC 195 , at the stage of grant of bail, this Court is not to venture into a meticulous analysis of the evidence or

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 28/02/2026 at 11:50:23

¶25

credibility of the witnesses which can only be tested through trial, but must only see the case against the applicant through a prima facie lens.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid as also based on the materials on record, there is no dispute that the nature of accusations levelled against the applicant is/ are grave in nature, involving aggravated sexual assault of a child of merely eight years of age, which carries a punishment upto seven years of imprisonment. Not only that, since the trial is at a nascent stage as the prosecutrix is yet to be examined, evidence/ witness tampering is a highly likely apprehension. Besides that, the applicant is residing in the very same neighbourhood as the prosecutrix.

¶27

In such a scenario, prima facie , granting bail to the applicant is likely to hamper the investigations and affect the trial and the overall pendency of the proceedings.

¶28

Moreover, the very object behind the POCSO Act is to afford special protection to the children, who are well-recognised as a vulnerable group in society.

¶29

Thus, in view of the aforesaid, no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 15. Needless to say, since the expressions of opinion, if any, are for purposes of adjudication of the present application only, they have no bearing on the overall merit/ trial of the case involved.

¶30

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

¶31

FEBRUARY 26, 2026/Ab

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 28/02/2026 at 11:50:23

Md. Jaseem v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Jaseem v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faisal Alam @ Sharukh@Mota Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Aakash Khokhar Vs State NCT of Delhi

Gaurav Arora Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Rakhib Miah Vs State Govt.of N.C.T. Delhi

Vijeta Gautam Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Gaurav Godara Vs the State of NCT of Delhi through Its Station House Officer Police Station Indira Gandhi Internatio