Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohd Ubaid vs State(Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025
MOHD UBAID .....Applicant
Through: Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Muzakkir Zama Khan,
Ms. Aarfa Kanam, Ms. Uditi Bali,
Mr. K.S. Choudhary and Mr. Om
Prakash Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Yash Agarwal,
Ms. Archisha Satyarthi, Advocates
for R-2.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with Ms. Doli Tevatia, SI, PS-New
Friends Colony.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 01.08.2025
1. The present application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks grant of pre-arrest bail in relation to FIR No. 178/2025 dated 1st May, 2025 registered under Sections 69 and 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233 at P.S. New Friends Colony. The Applicant's previous application seeking pre-arrest bail was rejected by order dated 6th June, 2025 passed by ASJ, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, the present Application was filed and this Court by order dated 20th June, 2025 1 "BNSS"
2"Cr.P.C."3
"BNS"BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 1 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 had directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Applicant till the next date of hearing.
2. The case of the prosecution against the Applicant is as follows:
2.1. An FIR was registered on the complaint of Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant), who alleged that she came into contact with the Applicant, Mohd. Ubaid, through a mutual friend. The Applicant, stated to be a distant relative, began communicating regularly with the Complainant and made assurances of marriage. During the Complainant's work-related visit to Hyderabad between 1st October, 2024 and 15th October, 2024, the Applicant allegedly followed her and stayed in the same hotel as hers. 2.2. Later, the Applicant asked the Complainant to go to Shimla for New Year celebrations, which she declined. Thereafter, on his request for a party, the Applicant took her to Hotel Divine Inn on the pretext of celebrating New Year's eve, where he allegedly administered an intoxicating substance in her drink. The Complainant lost consciousness and was allegedly sexually assaulted by the Applicant. Upon regaining consciousness, the Complainant found herself in physical discomfort and, when she confronted the Applicant, he informed her that he had taken photographs and videos of her and threatened to circulate the same among her family, friends, and colleagues if she did not comply with his demands. 2.3. Subsequently, on 15th April, 2025, the Complainant learned that the Applicant had gotten engaged to another woman on 5th April, 2025. 2.4. On becoming aware of the Applicant's engagement, the Complainant filed a complaint, on the basis of which, an FIR under Sections 69 and 351(2) of BNS, was registered. Subsequently, her medical examination was conducted and her statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded on 5th BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 2 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 May, 2025, before the Court, corroborating her previous version. 2.5. During investigation, two visits were made to the Applicant's residence in Muzaffarnagar on 1st May, 2025 and 10th May, 2025, but he could not be found and did not join the investigation. Consequently, a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was affixed on the wall of his house. 2.6. On 14th May, 2025, the Applicant was granted interim protection from arrest by the Sessions Court until 6th June, 2025 in bail application no. 1280/2025 with directions to join investigation.
2.7. The Applicant joined the investigation on 15th May, 2025, and his interrogation report was prepared. His phone was seized for recovering the alleged obscene photos/videos, and his medical examination and potency test were conducted at AIIMS Hospital.
2.8. The Applicant also joined the investigation on 16 th May, 2025, 20th May, 2025, 26th May, 2025, and 29th May, 2025 in compliance with notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. During investigation, he also produced certain chats with the Complainant and a pendrive allegedly containing recordings sent by the Complainant. The same were duly seized. However, since the authenticity of the chats could not be verified at this stage, the mobile phone of the accused has been sent to CFSL, Lodhi Road, Delhi, for retrieval of the deleted chats exchanged between the Complainant and the accused. 2.9. During the investigation, Mohd. Shahjad and Mohd. Zaid who was with the Applicant from the night of 31st December, 2024 till 2nd January, 2025, recorded their statements under Section 180 BNSS. The common friend of the Applicant and the Complainant, Mohd. Swalaheen, also joined the investigation and his statement was recorded under Section 180 BNSS. 2.10. Thereafter, on 30th May, 2025 the Complainant in her reply to notice BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 3 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 under Section 94 BNSS, produced two pendrives along with transcripts containing certain recordings in which the Applicant could be heard lying to the Complainant about his engagement with another girl. The said pen drives along with transcript were seized along with a certificate under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 2.11. During investigation, a police call made by the Complainant on 1 st January, 2025 at 5:36 AM was also verified and placed on record. In the said call, the Complainant is stated to have mentioned that a married woman keeps calling her boyfriend and harassing him, and contacts him using different IDs.
2.12. Subsequently, the Applicant's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 6th June, 2025. Thereafter, on 11th June, 2025 and 18th June, 2025, raids were conducted at his residence, but he was not found. A notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was served directing him to join investigation on 19th June, 2025.
2.13. However, the Applicant instead approached this Court seeking pre- arrest bail, and on 20th June, 2025, was granted interim protection with a direction to join the investigation. Thereafter, the accused joined investigation on 21st June, 2025.
2.14. In view of the interim protection granted by this Court, on State's request, it was clarified that the said order did not preclude filing of the chargesheet. Accordingly, a chargesheet was filed before the concerned ACJM Court on 7th July, 2025.
3. Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Counsel for the Applicant, submits that the present case arises out of a mutual relationship between the Applicant and the Complainant, which soured over time and is now being projected as a BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 4 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 criminal offence. In this context, the following contentions are urged:
3.1. The allegations levelled in the FIR are bald, vague, and frivolous. The Applicant and the Complainant were in a consensual relationship spanning approximately ten months and the claim of non-consensual physical relationship is completely misconceived and malicious. Both parties were introduced through a mutual friend, and it was the Complainant who initially expressed her interest in pursuing a casual relationship with the Applicant.
However, the Applicant declined such a proposal, stating his intention to be in a serious and committed relationship. It is only thereafter that Complainant agreed to enter into a committed relationship with the Applicant. In fact, the Applicant had the intention of proposing marriage to the Complainant, but she repeatedly deferred the matter without providing any satisfactory reason and declined requests by the Applicant or his parents to visit her residence.
3.2. The alleged trip to Shimla was not proposed by the Applicant but by the Complainant herself, and it was only after her insistence that the Applicant agreed to accompany her. However, during the course of their journey on 31st December, 2024, a dispute arose between the parties, following which they mutually decided to return to Delhi. While dropping the Complainant home, she allegedly sought to reconcile and, it was on her suggestion, that both parties checked into Hotel RKG Divine Inn, situated close to her residence.
3.3. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay of five months in lodging the FIR. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred on the intervening night of 31st December, 2024 and 1st January, 2025, while the complaint was filed on 1st May, 2025, culminating in the registration of the BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 present FIR, casting serious doubts as to the veracity of the accusations and the bona fides of the prosecutrix.
3.4. Moreover, the complaint appears to have been filed only after the Complainant came to know about the Applicant's engagement to another woman. This sequence of events points to a vengeful and premeditated action aimed at maligning the Applicant and misusing the legal process to cause him harm and harassment.
3.5. The Complainant continued to engage with the Applicant in cordial conversation on WhatsApp even on the day following the alleged incident, i.e., 2nd January, 2025, as well as on 10th January, 2025, 11th January, 2025 and 12th January, 2025. It is urged that these chats, which contain no reference to any allegation of rape or sexual assault, are inconsistent with the conduct of someone who has been allegedly subjected to a non-consensual act.
3.6 The Applicant has duly joined the investigation and has appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court. Further, the chargesheet has already been filed and the investigation stands concluded. 3.7 The Applicant does not have any prior criminal antecedents and undertakes to remain available for investigation and trial as and when required by the authorities. In view of the conclusion of investigation and filing of chargesheet, the Applicant's custody is no longer necessary.
4. Mr. Uppal, Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 (the Complainant), on the other hand, vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the following grounds:
4.1. The Applicant, under the guise of a serious and committed relationship, made repeated assurances of marriage to gain the trust of the BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 6 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 Complainant. Relying on these promises, the Complainant entered into an intimate relationship with him. However, the Applicant had no real intention of fulfilling his commitment and ultimately betrayed her trust, causing her deep emotional distress and subjecting her to severe physical and psychological exploitation.
4.2. The Complainant harbours a genuine apprehension for her safety and security in view of the Applicant's conduct and overall disposition. He refers to the social media profile of the Applicant and relies upon certain photographs uploaded on the Facebook profile of the Applicant, wherein the Applicant is seen holding firearms. It is contended that these visuals have intensified the Complainant's fear, and the Applicant's release could threaten the safety of the Complainant and her family.
5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, also opposes the grant of bail. He makes the following submissions:
5.1. The nature and gravity of the allegations against the Applicant, coupled with the apprehension of the Applicant absconding, warrant denial of pre-arrest bail.
5.2. There exists a serious likelihood of the Applicant attempting to evade trial or interfere with the evidence and witnesses, and therefore, bail should not be granted.
5.3. FSL report regarding the alleged photos and videos recorded by the Applicant is also awaited.
6. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. At this stage, and for the limited purpose of considering the present anticipatory bail application, the Court notes that the Applicant has placed on record certain WhatsApp messages and communications exchanged with the Complainant.BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 7 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 These messages, viewed prima facie, appear to reflect a mutual relationship between the Applicant and the Complainant. In such a context, the allegation of false promise to marry would require closer scrutiny at trial. Whether the alleged promise was made in good faith and later withdrawn due to changed circumstances, or was never intended to be fulfilled and only extended to obtain consent for a physical relationship, is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
7. The investigation stands concluded and a chargesheet has been filed. The Applicant has joined the investigation on multiple occasions and cooperated with the IO. Hence, the Court is of the view that the Applicant's custodial interrogation is no longer required at this stage.
8. The Applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and is not a resident of Delhi. These factors, coupled with the filing of chargesheet, mitigate the concerns regarding absconding or tampering with evidence. Nevertheless, in view of the concerns raised by the Complainant regarding her safety and the apprehension of threat, and to strike a balance, the Court deems it appropriate to allow the application with strict conditions to ensure the safety of the Complainant and integrity of the trial process.
9. In light of the foregoing, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that, the Applicant, in the event of arrest, be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the following conditions:
a. The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and when directed by the IO;
b. The Applicant shall not leave the boundaries of the country without BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 8 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54 informing the IO/ SHO concerned;
c. The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
d. The Applicant shall not contact the victim or any of her family members;
e. The Applicant shall not reside within 3 km radius of the residence of the victim and shall also furnish proof of his residence to the concerned IO. The Applicant shall also not move in the vicinity of the victim in any manner;
f. The Applicant shall disclose his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall ensure that it remains switched on at all times; g. The mobile number of the IO shall be shared with the victim so that in case of any apprehension, she can contact the IO;
h. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
10. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. The application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 1, 2025 nk BAIL APPLN. 2225/2025 Page 9 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 22:43:54