New Delhi, March 23 A Delhi court has granted regular bail to a 63-year-old man accused in a rape case, noting inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, a delay in filing the FIR, and the complainant's refusal to undergo a medical examination.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the same amount.
The accused had been in judicial custody since January 2, 2026, after being charged under sections 64(1) (rape) and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
"The victim, who is present before the court along with her counsel, submits that she does not wish to pursue this case, and therefore, the accused/applicant may be granted bail," the court stated in its order dated March 17.
The defense counsel highlighted several peculiarities in the case. He pointed out the statement of the victim's mother, who had said she had severed ties with the victim shortly after she left their house more than two years ago and decided to live with a woman named 'M', who was "making the victim do wrong things."
He argued that this woman 'M' had accompanied the victim to the police station on the day of the incident and on the day the FIR was registered. He submitted that the victim may have been manipulated by 'M'.
He argued that at the time of the incident, the victim was with the accused for 90 minutes during which she made 42 calls, 22 of which were with one specific person whose name was not recorded.
The incident occurred on December 30, 2025, and the FIR was registered on January 1. The court noted that the two-day gap had never been explained by the victim.
"The victim in this case had not given a complaint to the police on the date of the incident, despite the fact that she visited the police station (on December 30), and she only gave the complaint after a delay of two days," the court stated.
"The victim had not consulted her mother or father, but rather she consulted a woman named 'M', against whom the victim's mother has made serious allegations in her statement," the court said.
The judge also noted the complainant's refusal to undergo a medical examination and her inability to specify the exact location of the alleged offense.
The order also pointed out discrepancies in call detail records, stating that "the alleged call record between the victim and the woman named 'M' at the time of the incident is not reflected in the CDR on record."
A significant factor in granting bail was the complainant's submission before the court that she did not wish to pursue the case. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused had committed a heinous crime and that the charges had not yet been framed, with the complainant still to be examined as a witness for the prosecution.
The court also considered that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed, and that the accused was a senior citizen with no prior criminal record.
The court imposed several bail conditions on the accused, including keeping his mobile phone on at all times, not contacting prosecution witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and not approaching the complainant.
