[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Surjeet Kumar @ Kalu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 February, 2026
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 552/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4089/2026
SURJEET KUMAR @ KALU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. C.B. Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for
State with IO/SI Monika Singh.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 187/2023 of
Police Station Prem Nagar for offence under Section 363/376 IPC and
Section 6 of POCSO Act.
2. It is extremely unfortunate that neither side is equipped with complete
record. Learned APP submits on instructions of IO/SI Monika Singh that the
prosecutrix in her testimony supported prosecution case. Testimony of
prosecutrix has not been placed on record by the counsel for
accused/applicant. But on being called upon to show the testimony from his
BAIL APPLN. 552/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c
acca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
Digitally Signed d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879
65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2026.02.06 17:53:03 -08'00'
Signing Date:06.02.2026
17:52:26
file, counsel for accused/applicant expresses inability as he has not brought
the file. Even from the other side is the same status as the IO/SI Monika
Singh has not brought the investigation file.
3. In this court, bail matters are taken up on priority basis irrespective of
their placement in the cause list in order to ensure speedy disposal of the
same. But this is the classic example of delays as both sides are not serious
about the matter.
4. At this stage, the file has reached and is shown by learned prosecutor.
5. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he has been
falsely implicated. It is submitted by learned counsel that the prosecutrix, in
the very first sentence of her testimony before the trial court stated that no
offence was committed against her. It is contended by learned counsel that
the prosecutrix herself having not supported prosecution case, it is a fit case
to grant bail. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for
accused/applicant that the prosecutrix was examined completely on the same
day before the trial court. No other argument has been advanced.
6. But perusal of testimony of prosecutrix shows that submission of
learned counsel for accused/applicant is not correct. For clarity, I asked and
learned counsel for accused/applicant stated that it is he only who had cross
examined the prosecutrix before the trial court.
BAIL APPLN. 552/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
Digitally Signed d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2026.02.06 17:52:52 -08'00'
Signing Date:06.02.2026
17:52:26
7. As per the record produced before me, the prosecutrix was chief
examined as PW1 before the trial court on 12.09.2024 only partly and
thereafter her further chief examination was deferred as she was not feeling
well. Further chief examination of prosecutrix was carried out on
19.12.2024. In her chief examination, the prosecutrix completely supported
the prosecution case, alleging that she had been forcibly kidnapped under a
threat that if she objected, the accused/applicant would malign her by
posting her pictures on social media. The prosecutrix in her chief
examination further described having been taken to various places by the
accused/applicant where he raped her forcibly. If recording of further
testimony of the prosecutrix had to be deferred on 12.09.2024, her further
testimony ought to have been recorded on the very next day, keeping in
mind the nature of the trial. But the learned Court of Sessions dealing with
the POCSO trial adjourned the matter to 19.12.2024. It is on 19.12.2024 that
in her cross examination the prosecutrix took a U-turn. It has been
repeatedly directed across multiple judicial precedents that in trials before
the Court of Sessions, the trial must be taken up on day to day basis at least
so far as the witness in box is concerned. For, such prolonged gap in the
course of recording testimony creates occasions for pressurizing the partly
examined witnesses of prosecution.
8. After examining the police file, learned prosecutor submits that all
family members of the prosecutrix have supported the prosecution
allegations.
BAIL APPLN. 552/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cac
ca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
Digitally Signed d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2026.02.06 17:52:42 -08'00'
Signing Date:06.02.2026
17:52:26
9. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is that the accused/applicant
kidnapped the prosecutrix, minor in age and after taking her to various
places, he sexually ravaged her.
10. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to
release the accused/applicant on bail. Therefore, the bail application is
dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for being conveyed to the accused/applicant. Pending application stands
disposed of.
11. In view of circumstances described in paragraph 7 above, it is directed
that copy of this judgment be sent to all Principal District and Sessions
Judges in Delhi with the request to circulate the same amongst all courts
dealing with trials in Sessions Cases, especially cases under the POCSO Act
with the direction to ensure that preferably such trials should be conducted
on day-to-day basis and if that is not possible, testimony at least of the
witness already being examined should be recorded on day-to-day basis till
its conclusion, so that any possibility of pressurizing the witness is
minimized.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.06 17:52:27 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 06, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 552/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages
