Ankit Lakra v. The State NCT Of Delhi Through Sho

$~121 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.05.2026 + ANKIT LAKRA .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Pooja Kumari, Mr. Tej Singh Varun, Mr.

Deven Varun, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr.

Manish Kumar, Ms. Seema Rehani, Advocates versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO ..Respondent Through:

Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.

Mr. Manan Khanna, Amicus Curiae for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1.

By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 02/2026, registered at Police Station Chankyapuri, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/64(2)/65/115(2)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNS'), Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereafter 'POCSO Act').

2.

The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the status report filed by the State, are that the victim/prosecutrix, along with her parents, had submitted a written complaint against the accused/applicant, Ankit Lakra. In her complaint, the prosecutrix stated that she was acquainted with the applicant and had been in a relationship with him after they had exchanged their Instagram IDs. She alleged that, in the year 2022, the applicant had first established physical relations with her and thereafter used to take her to different hotels on various occasions. As per the allegations, the last such incident had taken place in July, 2025. It was further alleged that the applicant had recorded private photographs and videos of the prosecutrix. On 07.01.

2026, the prosecutrix had met the applicant for getting the said photographs and videos deleted from his mobile phone. However, the applicant allegedly refused to delete the same, which led to an altercation between them. At that time, the applicant had allegedly been accompanied by his friend, namely Tushar. The prosecutrix further alleged that the applicant had threatened her by showing a knife, threatened to kill her, and had also slapped her, while Tushar had threatened the friend of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, both of them had fled from the spot, following which the prosecutrix, along with her parents, reached the Police Station and filed the complaint.

3.

Thereafter, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and the present FIR was registered. During investigation, the prosecutrix supported and reiterated the allegations in her

statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned Magistrate, as well as in the history recorded in her MLC and other statements made during investigation. The applicant was arrested on 08.01.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. The mobile phone of the applicant was seized and sent to FSL, Rohini, and the report thereof is stated to be awaited. The co-accused Tushar was bound down for the offence punishable under Section 351(3) of BNS for allegedly threatening the friend of the prosecutrix. The school records collected during investigation reveal that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 18.02.2008 whereas the date of birth of the applicant is 06.07.2004. It is stated that the main chargesheet has already been filed before the concerned Court. 4.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the prosecutrix had been in a consensual relationship with the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody for about four months and that the chargesheet in the present case has already been filed. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has recently married a person of her own choice. The learned counsel further contends that when the father of the prosecutrix had been hospitalized, she had sought financial assistance from the applicant and, upon the applicant expressing his inability to provide the same, the present FIR came to be lodged at her instance. It is also argued that there is delay in registration of the FIR. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be admitted to bail. 5.

The learned APP appearing for the State opposes the bail

application and argues that the prosecutrix was admittedly a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. It is submitted that the applicant had repeatedly established physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions from the year 2022 till July, 2025. It is further submitted that, during the course of investigation, it had come on record that while booking hotel rooms, the applicant had allegedly used a fake Aadhaar card in the name of one 'S', showing the prosecutrix to be a major, and had instructed her to memorise the said false identity in case any query was made at the hotel reception. The learned APP further submits that the statement of said 'S' was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, wherein she had identified the applicant, though she denied having handed over her Aadhaar Card to him. It is also submitted that the applicant had recorded private photographs and videos of the prosecutrix and had blackmailed her. It is therefore prayed that the present bail application be dismissed. 6.

The learned amicus curiae appearing for the prosecutrix has also filed reply to the bail application, and vehemently opposed the same. He has argued that the plea of the applicant regarding the relationship being consensual is devoid of merit, as the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time and, therefore, any alleged consent is legally immaterial. It is further submitted that the applicant had exploited the tender age and vulnerability of the prosecutrix and had repeatedly subjected her to sexual exploitation on multiple occasions at hotels, guest houses and at his residence, and further, he had recorded private and objectionable photographs and videos of the

prosecutrix during the course of their relationship. It is also contended that on 07.01.2026, when the prosecutrix had asked the applicant to delete the said material, the applicant had refused to do so and had instead assaulted and criminally intimidated her by slapping her, showing a knife and threatening to kill her if she disclosed the incidents to anyone, and his friend Tushar had also threatened the friend of the prosecutrix.

7.

This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant, as well as the State and the victim, and has perused the material available on record.

8.

After hearing arguments and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the applicant, that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual, cannot come to his aid at this stage. As per the material collected during investigation, the prosecutrix was about 14 years of age at the time of the first alleged incident and about 17 years of age at the time of the last alleged incident.

9.

The prosecutrix has categorically alleged that the applicant used to take her to different hotels and guest houses where he repeatedly established physical relations with her. It has also been alleged that, for the purpose of booking hotel rooms, the applicant used to submit a fake Aadhaar Card belonging to the sister of his friend. In her supplementary statement, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that whenever they used to visit hotels or guest

houses, the applicant used to force her to memorise the particulars mentioned in the said fake Aadhaar Card, which was in the name of one 'S'. She has further alleged that the applicant used to compel her to sign as 'S' in the hotel registers and, on occasions when she forgot to do so, he used to scold her. During investigation, the relevant hotel entries in this regard have been collected by the Investigating Officer, upon identification of such hotels by the prosecutrix. The statement of the said 'S' was also recorded during investigation. She stated that about two years back, when she was residing in Dwarka, the present applicant used to reside in the same locality and was a friend of her brother. She categorically stated that she had never handed over her Aadhaar Card to the applicant for any purpose and was not aware as to how her Aadhaar Card details had come into his possession. 10.

This Court is also informed that inappropriate photographs and videos of the prosecutrix and the applicant were found in the mobile phone which the prosecutrix had allegedly snatched from the applicant on 07.01.2026. The said mobile phone has been seized and sent to FSL and the report thereof is still awaited. It is the specific allegation of the prosecutrix that the applicant used to blackmail her on the basis of the said photographs and videos and, under such threat, continued to sexually assault her at different places, including hotels and his residence.

11.

There is also a statement of one friend of the prosecutrix. She has stated that she was aware of the friendship between the prosecutrix and the applicant and that she had accompanied the

prosecutrix to Sanjay Park, where the prosecutrix had requested the applicant to delete her photographs and videos. However, according to the said witness, the applicant had refused to delete the same and had threatened the prosecutrix by showing her a knife. She has also alleged that the applicant's friend, Tushar, had threatened her. These allegations are also corroborated by the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS of one 'K', a relative of the prosecutrix, who had also accompanied her to Sanjay Park on 07.01.2026. 12.

The police has also recorded the statement of an independent witness who stated that he had seen a boy slapping a girl (i.e. the prosecutrix) and thereafter, the friend of the said girl had requested him to allow them to make a phone call to the father of the girl who had been slapped, following which his mobile phone was used for making the said call.

13.

In the above circumstances, even if it is assumed, at this stage, that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the applicant on certain occasions after becoming acquainted with him, the material collected during investigation reveals that she was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. The allegations against the applicant are also not confined only to establishing physical relations with the prosecutrix, but extend to preparation of her inappropriate photographs and videos and thereafter allegedly blackmailing and threatening her on the basis of the same. The mobile phone allegedly containing such material has already been seized and sent to FSL, and the report thereof is still awaited. The material placed before this

Court further reflects that entries from the concerned hotels and guest houses have been collected during investigation, where rooms were allegedly booked by using a fake Aadhaar card in the name of 'S' and the prosecutrix had been allegedly instructed by the applicant to represent herself as 'S'. The statement of the said 'S' also supports the prosecution case to the extent that she has denied ever handing over her Aadhaar Card to the applicant. Furthermore, apart from the statement of the prosecutrix, the allegations regarding the incident dated 07.01.2026 also find prima facie support from the statements of the prosecutrix's friend, her relative, as well as an independent witness.

14.

The prosecutrix is yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

15.

Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. 16.

It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 17.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MAY 07, 2026/zp/TD