Ccl Hxxxx Through His Mother v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.
$~10 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4800/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2444/2025 CCL HXXXX THROUGH HIS MOTHER .....Petitioner Through:
Mr.
Nishant Nain, Ms.
Charu Sharma and Mr.
Chanderjeet Yadav, Advocates.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
SI Anju, PS Prem Nagar.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate with the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R
% 17.03.2026 1.
By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, a child in conflict with law ["CCL"] seeks anticipatory bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 569/2025 dated 23.11.2025 registered at Police Station Prem Nagar under Sections 64(1), 75, 78, 79 & 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ["BNS"] and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ["the POCSO Act"].
2.
The allegation against the petitioner is that in the year 2024, he had contacted the prosecutrix on Instagram. He thereafter met her and took her in an auto to a location where he established forceful physical relations with her, recorded her photos and videos, and blackmailed her. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
There was also an allegation that on another day, he touched her inappropriately at a location near her school. 3.
I have heard Mr. Nishant Nain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the prosecutrix. 4.
Mr. Chauhan has handed up a status report, which is taken on record.
5.
Mr. Nain submits that the petitioner was granted interim protection by an order of this Court dated 12.12.2025, pursuant to which, he has joined inquiry and cooperated with the inquiry process. He submits that the FIR in question is an afterthought as it was registered as a counter blast to FIRs registered at the instance of the petitioner's mother and another relative, against the prosecutrix's brothers, for the offence of attempt to murder.
6.
Mr. Chauhan accepts that the petitioner has joined inquiry. However, he submits that the petitioner has not cooperated with the inquiry to the extent that he has not handed over an iPhone, on which photos and videos of the prosecutrix were allegedly recorded by him. 7.
Mr. Kumar supports the case of the prosecution, and refers to the nature of the offence to oppose bail, including the fact that the prosecutrix has supported the case made out in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is himself a CCL, aged approximately 16 1⁄2 years at the time of the offence. The prosecutrix is also of a similar age. The petitioner has joined the inquiry, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
subject to interim protection granted by this Court. The only allegation against him is that he has not handed over an iPhone on which the photos and videos were recorded. To this effect, Mr. Nain submits that the petitioner has denied possession of any such iPhone. It is, therefore, not a case where he can be denied liberty on the ground of non-cooperation with the inquiry. Cooperation in inquiry does not extend to an obligation to make a self-incriminatory statement, as held by the Supreme Court in Bijender v. State of Haryana [SLP (Crl.) 1079/2024, decided on 06.03.2024], and in Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana [SLP (Crl.) 232/2024, decided on 06.03.2024]. Mr. Chauhan also states that the investigation is almost complete, and it therefore does not appear that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for any reason. 9.
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that in the event of apprehension in connection with FIR No. 569/2025 dated 23.11.2025 registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, the petitioner will be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the following conditions: a. The petitioner will appear before the Juvenile Justice Board ["JJB"] proceedings on each and every date of hearing. b. The mobile number of the petitioner and his parents will be furnished to the IO, and the same shall be kept in working condition and always switched on. The mobile numbers shall not be changed or switched off without prior intimation to the IO; c. The parents of the petitioner will give the residential address to the IO where the petitioner will reside, and the petitioner will not The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
reside at any other location during the pendency of the proceedings without intimation to the IO and the JJB;
d. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact or attempt to contact the prosecutrix or any witness, nor shall he tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever;
e. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the proceedings.
10.
The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. 11.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MARCH 17, 2026 SS/AD/ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.