[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Shambhu Shah Through Parokar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 March, 2026
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3169/2024
SHAMBHU SHAH THROUGH PAROKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shannu Baghel, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with SI Nikita.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 213/2022 of
PS Bhajanpura for offence under Section 323/376/506 IPC and 06 POCSO
Act.
2. At the outset in view of order dated 19.01.2026 (whereby at request of
the accused/applicant, his surrender was extended to 09:00pm of
20.01.2026), in response to a query as to whether the accused/applicant
surrendered accordingly, the learned counsel for accused/applicant stated
that the accused/applicant has surrendered. But the IO/SI Nikita informs that
the accused/applicant surrendered on 26.02.2026. It is indeed shocking that
BAIL APPLN. 3169/2024 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4
835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.11 14:28:03 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.03.2026
15:08:45
the accused/applicant violated his specific undertaking before the
predecessor bench that he would surrender by 20.01.2026.
3. Considering the aforesaid, learned counsel for accused/applicant seeks
permission to withdraw this bail application with liberty to file afresh. But in
view of above conduct of the accused/applicant, I find no reason to permit
any liberty. More so, because this bail application was for the first time
heard by the predecessor bench on 03.09.2024 and thereafter, the matter
remained pending before different benches and was finally transferred to
this bench along with 179 such old pending bail applications. Today is the
first hearing before this bench.
4. In the above backdrop learned counsel for accused/applicant argues
that there are vital contradictions between the testimony of the mother of the
prosecutrix and her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. It is also
contended that the accused/applicant was not even present in his room when
the alleged offence took place.
5. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that
being a neighbour of the prosecutrix, who is aged hardly 05 years, the
accused/applicant took her along to his room and raped her. The prosecutrix
informed her mother and immediately FIR was got registered.
6. Considering the above circumstances, especially the gravity of
offence coupled with the fact that the accused/applicant cannot be trusted
BAIL APPLN. 3169/2024 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4
835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.11 14:28:21 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:11.03.2026
15:08:45
with when it comes to his joining the trial if released on bail, I do not find it
a fit case to grant any indulgence. Therefore, the bail application is
dismissed.
7. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
being informed to the accused/applicant.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the
FSL report does not mention that DNA of the accused/applicant was found
in the clothes of the prosecutrix. In view of specific allegation that the
prosecutrix aged about 05 years came out, bleeding from her private parts
and narrated the incident to her mother, which was recorded in the FIR, non
detection of DNA is not that significant for present purposes as tried to be
projected.
9. It is also submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the
prosecutrix and her mother are not appearing before the trial court. For that
the trial court would obviously take appropriate action.
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=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.11 14:28:33 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 11, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 3169/2024 Page 3 of 3 pages
