Man Accused of Drugging and Raping 10-Year-Old Neighbour Seeks Bail Citing No Injuries and CCTV; Delhi High Court Refuses Release
No Injuries Found During Medical Examination of 10-Year-Old Alleged Rape Victim; Delhi High Court Says This Does Not Justify Bail
Facts
The applicant, Sachin @ Naveen, sought regular bail in FIR No. 818/2025 registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy for offences under Sections 74, 75, 76 and 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant raped a 10-year-old neighbouring girl after administering an intoxicant through a toffee. The child, along with other children from the locality, used to visit the applicant’s house to watch television.
According to the prosecution, on 24 November 2025, after the other children had left, the applicant called the child back and gave her a toffee. She allegedly became unconscious and was raped.
On 26 November, she informed her parents, who took her to Maharishi Valmiki Hospital. The FIR was registered on 27 November 2025.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant denied that any such incident occurred.
His counsel relied principally upon three circumstances:
- the medical examination recorded no injury on the child;
- there were alleged contradictions between the timeline recorded in the MLC and the FIR; and
- CCTV footage filed with the supplementary chargesheet allegedly showed the child leaving along with the other children.
It was also argued that the applicant lived with his family, including his mother, making the prosecution’s version improbable according to the defence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State strongly opposed bail.
Importantly, the applicant had previously filed a bail application before a coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court but withdrew it on 25 August 2026.
For the fresh application, he asserted a change in circumstances because the prosecutrix’s mother had since been examined during trial.
Analysis of the Law
Previous Bail Withdrawal and Claimed Change in Circumstance
The Court specifically considered the earlier withdrawal.
The subsequent examination of the prosecutrix’s mother was relied upon as the changed circumstance. However, that development did not assist the applicant because both the child and her mother had fully supported the prosecution case at trial.
Thus, the post-withdrawal development relied upon by the accused did not weaken the prosecution case for purposes of bail.
False Implication Argument
The applicant asserted that the prosecution was false.
The Court specifically asked counsel why either the child or her mother would make such a serious false allegation against him.
Counsel was unable to identify any reason and instead stated that there was no enmity between the two families.
The Court, however, carefully clarified that these observations were confined to the bail application and that the Trial Court must independently assess the evidence without being influenced by them.
Court’s Reasoning
Two considerations weighed particularly heavily with the Delhi High Court.
First was the relationship of trust between the accused and the child. The prosecution case itself was that the child and other neighbourhood children routinely visited the applicant’s house to watch television.
Second was the gravity of the alleged offence and the severe punishment prescribed for it, which could extend to life imprisonment or death.
Against this background, the Court did not consider the defence reliance on the absence of injuries, alleged timeline inconsistencies or CCTV footage sufficient at the bail stage to justify release.
Precedent Analysis
The four-page order does not discuss or rely upon any reported precedent. The bail application was decided on the facts and circumstances placed before the Court.
Accordingly, no broader proposition should be attributed to the judgment that absence of injuries or CCTV evidence is always irrelevant in a POCSO bail application. The refusal was fact-specific, particularly because the child and her mother had already supported the prosecution during trial and the Court considered the alleged breach of trust and gravity of the offence significant.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that, considering the overall circumstances—particularly the relationship of trust between the applicant and the 10-year-old child, the gravity of the allegation and the punishment prescribed—this was not a fit case for regular bail.
The bail application and accompanying applications were accordingly dismissed.
Case: Sachin @ Naveen v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case No.: Bail Application No. 4054/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 24 September 2026
Result: Regular bail refused; the Court relied particularly on the child and her mother supporting the prosecution, the alleged relationship of trust, and the gravity of the offence.
