[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sarika@Radha@Lovanya T vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 February, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 808/2025
SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T. .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Madhupreet Nanda, proxy
counsel
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with SI Virender, PS Kamla Market
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 72/2021 of
Police Station Kamla Market for offence under Section
363/366(A)/368/370/370(A)/372/376/34 IPC read with Section 3/4/5/6/7
ITP Act read with Section 6/17 POCSO Act.
2. None appeared on behalf of accused/applicant in the first call. Even in
this second call, arguing counsel for accused/applicant has not appeared.
This bail application was listed for the first time before the predecessor
bench on 24.02.2025 and remains pending till date. As a part of 179 old
pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench
BAIL APPLN. 808/2025 Page 1 of 2 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.02.26 17:22:39 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:26.02.2026
17:22:38
and today is the first date before me. Previous record also reflects that on
past three consecutive dates, matter was being adjourned before the
predecessor bench at request of learned counsel for accused/applicant.
3. Despite this backdrop, today none appeared on behalf of
accused/applicant in the first call and the matter had to be passed over. Now
even in second call, the arguing counsel has opted not to appear and has sent
only a proxy counsel to seek adjournment or further passover. Further
passover is not possible due to pending board. And adjournment, in
circumstances mentioned in preceding paragraph would not be appropriate.
But on being called upon to address arguments, learned proxy counsel for
accused/applicant expresses inability.
4. I have examined the record including the seriousness of offence
alleged against the accused/applicant, who allegedly pushed girls, including
one minor girl into flesh trade, leading to their rape on multiple occasions.
5. Considering the above circumstances, this bail application is
dismissed.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.26 17:22:25 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 26, 2026/as
BAIL APPLN. 808/2025 Page 2 of 2 pages
