VIVEK vs STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 878/2026 VIVEK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vinay Pratap Singh and Mr. Nitin Kumar Mudgal, Advocates. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO/WSI Krishna. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 394/2023 of Police Station Dwarka Sector 23 for offence under Section 363/376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 2. After last adjournment, status report was filed by prosecution side. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/WSI Krishna. I have also heard parents of the prosecutrix. BAIL APPLN. 878/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH KATHPALIA 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97 626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c 487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.22 04:47:46 -07'00' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Date:22.04.2026 17:24:30 3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that a missing complaint of his daughter was lodged by the first informant and subsequently, the minor girl was found with the accused/applicant at the home of sister of the accused/applicant. 4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the prosecutrix specifically stated on oath in her statement under Section 164 CrPC that she had left her parental home and had accompanied the accused/applicant voluntarily. It is also contended that according to the ossification test, the prosecutrix was