Police Must Not Disclose Sexual Assault Victim’s Name Or Address In Court Filings: Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has directed the Delhi Police to ensure that the name, parentage or address of a victim of sexual assault is not disclosed in any status report or document placed before the Court. The Court, while dealing with a matter arising out of allegations of sexual assault against an accused, issued specific directions to safeguard the victim’s identity during the course of investigation and judicial proceedings. It further requested the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to issue instructions to all Station House Officers and investigating officers to ensure that future filings strictly comply with the legal mandate protecting the confidentiality of such victims.
The matter arose from an application seeking regular bail in a criminal case concerning allegations of sexual assault on a minor girl. The prosecution case was that a PCR call was received regarding molestation of a child, following which the police reached the spot and found that the incident pertained to sexual assault of a minor. A counsellor was called, and the prosecutrix was medically examined. A written complaint was submitted alleging that the accused had taken the minor to a room on a false pretext and committed sexual assault. The incident came to light when the mother of the prosecutrix searched for her and reached the accused’s premises. On the basis of the complaint, counselling report, and medical examination, an FIR was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was pending trial.
The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated and remained in custody despite completion of investigation and examination of material witnesses. It was argued that the case rested solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, which allegedly contained contradictions and inconsistencies, that there was delay in lodging the complaint, and that medical and forensic evidence was inconclusive. The State opposed the application, submitting that the allegations were grave, that the prosecutrix had consistently supported the prosecution case in her statements and testimony, and that such issues were matters for trial. Delhi High Court
The Court observed that “the mere fact that the alleged incident occurred during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic cannot, by itself, be a ground to presume that the offence could not have been committed or to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix.” It recorded that “the prosecutrix was of tender age, being about 12–13 years at the relevant time,” and that she had “consistently supported the prosecution case and has clearly described the manner in which the incident of sexual assault took place” in her statements before the police, the Magistrate, and the Trial Court.
Dealing with the contention regarding the alleged consensual relationship between the accused and the mother of the victim, the Court observed that “such a contention does not provide any ground to doubt the testimony of the victim.” It further stated that “even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the mother of the victim had a consensual relationship with the accused, the same cannot lead to an inference that the applicant could not have committed sexual assault upon the minor child.”
The Court noted that “the admitted familiarity of the accused with the prosecutrix and her family lends support to the prosecution version” since the prosecutrix trusted the accused, whom she addressed as “chacha.” It also recorded that “although a detailed analysis of the testimony of the victim is not warranted at the stage of consideration of bail, a prima facie assessment of the same is permissible,” particularly as her testimony had already been recorded and cross-examined.
Upon perusing the record, the Court recorded that the prosecutrix had alleged repeated aggravated sexual assault, confinement, and threats. It further observed that the testimony of the mother and the bua of the prosecutrix corroborated the prosecution version regarding the tracing and rescue of the minor and the conduct of the accused. The Court stated that “the alleged conduct of the prosecutrix’s mother, even if assumed to be correct, cannot be a sole ground to doubt the version of a minor victim,” and that “where a minor has herself come forward and consistently disclosed abuse, the Court is duty-bound to accord due weight to her version while considering the prayer for bail.”
The Court directed that “the present bail application alongwith pending application is dismissed.” It clarified that “nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”
Before parting with the matter, the Court noted with concern that “the name of the prosecutrix has been mentioned in the status report filed by the I.O. before this Court.” In view thereof, the Court directed that “the DCP of the concerned area (having jurisdiction over P.S. Moti Nagar) is directed to sensitise all SHOs under his jurisdiction to strictly ensure that the name, parentage, or address of a victim of sexual assault is not disclosed in any status report or document filed before the Courts.”
The Court also requested that “the Commissioner of Police, Delhi is also requested to reiterate appropriate instructions to all SHOs and Investigating Officers in this regard, in strict compliance with law.” It further directed that “a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the DCP concerned as well as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for information and compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Mr. Vivek Singh, Mr. Sanskar Krishnan, Mr. Kushagra Sinha, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State, with Ms. Amisha Dahiya, Advocate
Case Title: Vicky Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:530
Case Number: Bail Appln. 1329/2025 & Crl. M.A. 973/2026
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
