Gayassudin vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 167/2025 of PS Jamia Nagar for offence under Section 69/123/89/79/351/115(2) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

In furtherance of last order, testimony of the prosecutrix was recorded by  the  trial  court  and  copy  of  the  same  has  been  filed  by  prosecution  with the status report. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned  APP  for  State  assisted  by IO/SI  Shakuntala. I  have  also  heard  the prosecutrix (who herself is a law student) as well as her counsel.

Broadly speaking, the case set up by the prosecution is that despite specific and detailed allegations of rape, followed by pregnancy and abortion, the prosecutrix after attaining the age of majority opted to get married with the accused/applicant.

3.1 The  FIR  was  registered  on  the  statement  of  the  prosecutrix,  alleging that at the age of 16 years, the prosecutrix developed friendship with the accused/applicant  over  Facebook  and  on  his  request,  she  accompanied  him to a  flat of his friend. The accused/applicant specifically  assured that they would just sit and talk and nothing wrong would be done to her. Once inside the flat, the accused/applicant served her a soft drink and chicken, which she consumed and gradually  lost consciousness. In the evening, on regaining consciousness, she found herself completely naked and also found the accused/applicant naked lying by her side; there were blood stains on the mattress and she felt pain in her private  parts, so she started crying. At that stage, the accused/applicant assured to get married with her after she attained age of 18 years. Thereafter, the accused/applicant went out to bring some pain killer and gave the same to her and at about 08:30 pm  both of them left the flat and she returned home. Thereafter, again the accused/applicant took her to his home when none else was there and indulged in sex with her. Even thereafter, the accused/applicant, falsely assuring  her  to  get  married,  repeatedly  took  her  to a  hotel and  indulged  in sexual relations. During the said period, she got pregnant twice and the accused/applicant got the pregnancy  terminated. But after she attained the age  of  18 years,  the  accused/applicant  refused  to  get  married  with  her  and even started beating her up. It is with that background, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police which was registered.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that subsequent to registration of the case, the accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix,  so  it  is  a fit  case  to  release  him  on  bail.  In  this  regard,  learned counsel for accused/applicant also places reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix recorded by the trial court and submits that the prosecutrix never had any grievance with the accused/applicant and that she was not even aware about the contents of her complaint, because the same was drafted by her counsel in Saket Courts.

The prosecutrix and her counsel also support the accused/applicant. The  prosecutrix  submits  that  the  contents  of  the  FIR  are  false  and  that  she was not aware about the same, because she did not read the FIR. However, prosecutrix also states that initially her counsel had drafted the complaint in English, but on her insistence, he translated the same into Hindi and she submitted the same before the Local Police.

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Shakuntala strongly opposes the bail application, disclosing that the prosecutrix is not an illiterate person but is a student of law, so it cannot be believed that she was not aware about contents of her complaint. It is also submitted by learned APP for State that this is a fit case in which the police needs to take action against the prosecutrix in view of her testimony before the trial court. It is submitted by learned APP for State that granting bail in such cases would encourage such lawlessness with impunity.

To begin with, it would be significant to note that the prosecutrix is a law student and prima facie, I find it difficult to believe that she is so gullible  that  she  would  simply sign  such  a  serious  complaint  and  give  it  to the local police, that too after getting the same translated from English to Hindi without reading its contents. Not only this, the prosecutrix today also before this Court does not divulge the identity of the advocate, who allegedly drafted that  complaint.  As stated by her  before  the  trial  court,  the prosecutrix even paid fees to that advocate. From testimony of prosecutrix, I find credence in the argument of the prosecution that prima facie, her testimony appears to be false, though on this aspect, the trial court shall take an  independent view  and  this observation  is being made only  to  deal with the argument advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix.

Further, the IO had also got recorded statement of the prosecutrix before the magistrate concerned under Section 164 CrPC, in which she reiterated the abovementioned allegations  levelled by her in the  FIR.  In her testimony, the prosecutrix stated that the concerned magistrate had asked her if  she  was telling truth  or  not,  but  she  did  not  say that  the  allegations  were false,  because  her Advocate  had warned  her  that  if  she  did  not  reiterate the contents of her complaint, she would have to go to jail. Such statement coming from a person not an illiterate but a law student is difficult to believe.

Of course, as per documents on record, on 12.02.2026, the accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix through Nikahnama. But that does not absolve the accused/applicant of his repeated acts of rape when the prosecutrix was minor in age. As mentioned above, at the time of commencement of sexual relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix, the latter was aged only 16 years and when she attained the age of majority  in the year 2024, the accused/applicant refused to get married with her, which led to the present FIR. It is only after the accused/applicant was arrested and was in  jail that he agreed to get married with her, so by way of order dated 02.02.2026 of this Court, his interim bail application was disposed of directing that he be taken in custody before the Qazi, who performed the  marriage  ceremony.  Clearly,  the  marriage  was  performed  by the accused/applicant simply as a ploy to get himself bailed out, having committed repeated  rapes  of  a  minor  girl,  as  alleged  by her  in  the  FIR  and statement under Section 164 CrPC.

Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. The bail application is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant immediately.