Rajender v. State NCT Of Delhi

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4649/2025 RAJENDER .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Adv.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State with Mr. Bhuman Bansal and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 02.12.2025 CRL.M.A. 35849/2025 (Exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 4649/2025 3.

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 31/2018, registered at PS Ranhola, for the offences punishable under Sections 376/376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(g)/5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4.

Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false, frivolous and motivated and have been made solely with an intent to harass and falsely implicate the petitioner.

5.

It is further submitted that there are, in fact, no direct or specific The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2025 at 11:32:28

allegations against the petitioner and that his name has been unnecessarily roped in.

6.

Per contra, Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP for the State, opposes the petition and submits that the prosecutrix has specifically and categorically levelled direct allegations against the petitioner regarding the commission of the alleged offence.

7.

Learned APP draws attention to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein she has unequivocally attributed the act in question to the petitioner.

8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 9.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfactorily respond to the specific query of this Court as to why the petitioner has been named in the FIR and in the statement under Section 164 CrPC if he had no involvement whatsoever in the matter. 10.

The prosecutrix has clearly and consistently alleged the role of the petitioner in the commission of the offence, and such direct allegations cannot be lightly brushed aside at this stage. 11.

In view of the aforesaid, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. AJAY DIGPAUL, J DECEMBER 2, 2025/AS/dd The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2025 at 11:32:28