[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sheikh Asikul vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 13 February, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3062/2024
SHEIKH ASIKUL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Mr. Sanjeet
Kumar, Ms. Shweta Singh and Mr.
Shiv Chopra, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Lokesh Kumar, PS Govind
Puri
Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain and Ms.
Sakshi, Advocates for prosecutrix
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 110/2018 of
Police Station Govind Puri for the offence under Section 323/342/376D/34
IPC & Section 6 POCSO Act. I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicant and learned APP for State as well as learned counsel for
prosecutrix.
BAIL APPLN. 3062/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c
6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID
KATHPALIA
- 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.13 17:13:13 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:13.02.2026
17:22:57
2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The prosecutrix,
a resident of Bangladesh, immigrated to India and she is not conversant with
any language other than Bangla. With the help of translator, on her
complaint the FIR was registered alleging that about five months back, she
was brought from Kolkata by the accused/applicant with the promise to give
job and she stayed in his house where two more persons including his
brother Raju Sheikh were residing. Those three persons including the
accused/applicant repeatedly raped her, due to which she conceived.
Whenever she would object, all three of them would beat her up and forcibly
rape her. During that period, Raju Sheikh also got issued an Aadhar Card in
her name. Thereafter, on the promise of giving her job one Farida Begum
took the prosecutrix to the Jaipur but on account of some dispute between
Farida Begum and her husband the prosecutrix ran away and reached the
police station. No wrong was committed against her in Jaipur.
3. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits
that all public witnesses including the prosecutrix stand examined and going
by the evidence brought on record, conviction of the accused/applicant for
the alleged offences is not possible. It is contended that according to the
evidence on record, the prosecutrix was aged above 18 years at the time of
registration of the FIR and as regards the time of the alleged rape, no
specific period has been disclosed. Further, it is contended that the conduct
of the prosecutrix in remaining silent throughout especially during her travel
from Delhi to Jaipur shows that her testimony is not truthful. In this regard,
learned counsel for accused/applicant has also taken me through statement
BAIL APPLN. 3062/2024 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb
4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.13 17:13:33 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:13.02.2026
17:22:57
of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as her testimony in
trial. Further, it is contended that the prosecutrix, legality of whose
immigration to Delhi was not even investigated, has gone back to
Bangladesh even according to the prosecution, so there is no scope of any
pressure on her.
4. Learned APP for State and learned counsel for prosecutrix oppose the
bail application, submitting that as per the ossification report, the estimated
age of the prosecutrix in January 2019 was 17-19 years and accordingly, at
the time of the alleged offence she was less than 18 years, so her consent is
immaterial. It is also contended that the accused/applicant extended false
promise to get married, which led the prosecutrix agree for sexual relations.
5. Merely because, the offence with which the accused/applicant has
been charged is under the POCSO Act, it does not mean that the
accused/applicant be kept in jail endlessly, ignoring the record. As
mentioned above, prosecution is unable to specify the dates or even period
during which the prosecutrix was allegedly raped; the only period of
relevance would be the date 31.03.2018, when the FIR was registered.
According to ossification report Annexure P4 to the bail application, the
estimated radiological bone age of the prosecutrix in the month of January
2019 was 17-19 years. For present purposes, it cannot be disputed that at the
time of the alleged occurrence, the prosecutrix had attained the age of
majority or at least she was nearing that age and fully conscious about her
choices.
BAIL APPLN. 3062/2024 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb
4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb
d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.13 17:13:46 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:13.02.2026
17:22:57
6. The complete silence of the prosecutrix across the entire period when
she remained in Delhi followed by her travel to Jaipur, coupled with no
complaint from her side to even Farida Begum with whom she travelled to
Jaipur, conveys a reasonable impression that she indulged in sexual relations
with the accused/applicant with consent.
7. As regards obtaining the consent on the pretext of false promise of
getting married, as per her testimony, the prosecutrix was completely aware
that the accused/applicant was already married.
8. Of course, the above observations are yet to be tested by way of final
deliberations by the trial court. But for present purposes, the above
circumstances cannot be ignored.
9. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is
directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.13 17:14:00 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 13, 2026/as
BAIL APPLN. 3062/2024 Page 4 of 4 pages
