NIKUND KUMAR JHA vs STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.06.2025 + BAIL APPLN. 1888/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1092/2025 NIKUND KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra and Mr. Ankit Dhawan, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State. Mr. Sarthak Tomar, Advocate for Complainant. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 610/2024, registered at PS K.N. Katju Marg, North Delhi for offences under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, to which further offences including the offences under Section 376/328/354A/376D IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act were added in view of detailed statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant contends that the accused/applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated because on his BAIL APPLN. 1888/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages Signature Not Verified GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.06.09 14:21:16 +05'30' By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:09.06.2025 14:55:25 complaint under Section 494 IPC, the prosecutrix was called by the police for preparing Action Taken Report. It is further contended that the allegations against the accused/applicant are basically those arising out of matrimonial disputes, so the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also submits that at the time of the alleged sexual offences under POCSO Act, the accused/applicant was aged about 17 years 06 months, though he also clarified that he is not arguing that case under POCSO Act is not sustainable on account of age. Further, it is argued that none of the allegations mentioned in the FIR has been repeated in