‘Violent, Repeated Sexual Abuse’ | Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Minor’s Rape And Murder | Cites CCTV Footage, FSL Reports And ‘Last Seen’ Testimony As Strong Prima Facie Evidence
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has dismissed the twelfth application for regular bail filed by an accused charged with the kidnapping, repeated sexual assault, and murder of a minor. Holding that there existed no justification for granting bail at this stage, the Court observed that the nature of allegations, gravity of the offence, and substantial prima facie evidence weighed against the applicant. The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the recording of evidence from the remaining witnesses.
On 22 October 2018, a case was registered under FIR No. 420/2018 at Police Station Welcome, Delhi, after a report was made regarding the disappearance of a minor girl. According to the complaint, the child had left home around 10:00 AM to attend a tuition class in the neighborhood and failed to return by 1:00 PM. The family initiated an extensive search before approaching law enforcement. The case was initially registered under Section 363 of the IPC.
During the investigation, the girl’s tutor and her spouse were interrogated. Both denied any knowledge about her whereabouts. On 28 October 2018, information was received from another police station about the recovery of a minor’s dead body near Biodiversity Park, Wazirabad. The deceased was subsequently identified by family members. Based on this development, Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC were added to the FIR.
The Investigating Officer (IO) visited the recovery site and prepared a site plan. The body, preserved initially at Subzi Mandi Mortuary, was transferred to GTB Hospital for a post-mortem examination. Statements from multiple witnesses were recorded, including one individual who stated that the accused had left his pregnant spouse at a friend’s home on the night of 27 October 2018 and returned the next morning to collect keys before departing again.
On 31 October 2018, both individuals under investigation were taken into custody. The prosecution alleges that the accused, with assistance from his spouse, had developed a plan to bring the minor to their home under the pretense of tuition, administered sedatives to her, and subsequently transported her to another location where repeated acts of sexual assault were committed. The prosecution further alleges that upon the child’s health deteriorating, the accused murdered her by smothering and disposed of the body by transporting it in a suitcase to a remote area.
CCTV footage was obtained from near the dumping site, which reportedly showed the accused riding a scooter bearing a suitcase. The footage, captured on 28 October 2018 around 6:50 AM, was analyzed and corroborated by the FSL. The same scooter was later recovered.
A search operation led to the recovery of a T-shirt and cut fabric pieces at the scene. These items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with DVRs collected from both the dumping area and the accused’s residence. The FSL confirmed that the clothing found at the dump site matched with items belonging to the deceased and that the scooter matched the vehicle seen in the footage.
A post-mortem report provided evidence of sexual assault. It revealed genital and anal injuries consistent with repeated abuse. Following this, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was also added to the FIR.
Various items were recovered during the course of the investigation, including a sewing machine, plastic bags, handkerchiefs, shoes, helmets, jackets, and medication. The tablets seized from the accused were confirmed by the FSL to contain Clonazepam and Mefenamic Acid—substances with sedative and pain-relieving properties. The sewing machine was examined for possible linkage to altered clothing found with the deceased.
A chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 363, 201, 328, 109, and 34 IPC, along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. A supplementary chargesheet was also submitted, incorporating the forensic findings.
During the hearing, counsel for the applicant argued that the accused had been in judicial custody for approximately seven years and that the case rested solely on circumstantial evidence. It was contended that the chain of evidence was incomplete and that, given the delay in trial proceedings, bail should be granted.
The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the circumstantial chain was complete and was corroborated by forensic, physical, and electronic evidence, which collectively pointed to the applicant’s involvement in the offence.
“The allegations against the applicant are that in conspiracy with his wife, he had lured the minor victim to their house under the guise of giving tuitions for Namaz classes, administered sedatives to her, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault.”
The Court considered the statement of the victim’s mother, who had dropped her child at the accused’s residence on the day of the incident. “Her statement forms crucial last seen evidence, placing the victim in the exclusive company of the accused just before her disappearance.”
CCTV footage collected from Biodiversity Park showed an individual resembling the accused transporting a suitcase on a scooter matching the one later recovered. “As per the DVR seized from the vicinity, the applicant was seen arriving and leaving the area on 28.10.2018 at about 6:50 AM, riding a scooty... carrying a suitcase.”
The Court noted that recoveries made at the accused’s instance were admissible, even if the disclosure itself was not.
“A packet containing a T-shirt and two cut cloth pieces, suspected to belong to the deceased, was recovered. Forensic examination later confirmed that the T-shirt matched the one found on the body of the deceased.”
Additional evidence included handkerchiefs recovered from the accused’s house. “FSL found these to be similar in size, texture, design, and microscopic characteristics to the ligature material used for strangulation of the victim.”
The cause of death was confirmed in the post-mortem report: “Asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, caused by a white handkerchief...”
Chemical analysis confirmed sedatives in the recovered tablets: “The presence of Clonazepam and Mefenamic Acid in the tablets... corroborates with the applicant’s disclosure and the consistent narrative.”
The Court also acknowledged forensic correlation between sewing machine evidence and altered clothing recovered from the site: “Matching stitching patterns and thread reels supported the theory that garments had been altered using the machine found at the accused’s residence.”
Plastic bags found at the scene were also matched with those recovered from the home: “Polybags recovered from the accused’s house were found to be similar in composition and appearance to those used to carry the clothes of the victim.”
The Court summed up its findings: “Viewed cumulatively, the circumstances form a tight and coherent evidentiary chain... all point towards his direct and active role in the commission of the offence.”
It declined to conduct a detailed analysis of witness credibility at the bail stage: “At this stage, when the evidence collected by the investigating agency is still to be tested during trial, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court stated: “In cases involving serious offences like rape, murder... Courts should be loath in entertaining the bail application – once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses.”
The Court concluded that no ground existed for grant of bail in light of the grave nature of the offence, supporting forensic evidence, and substantial material indicating the applicant’s involvement. “For the reasons stated... and in view of the gravity of the allegations, the heinous and brutal nature of the offence, and the strong prima facie material linking the applicant to the commission of the crime, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.”
The Court instructed the Trial Court to ensure swifter trial proceedings: “The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite recording of evidence in this case as 14 witnesses out of 36 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined, who have supported the prosecution case.”
The order concluded: “Nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag Jain, Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Mr. M.K. Khan, and Mr. Aman Mirza, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Pant, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, along with SI Anugraha
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5331
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1463/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
