Monish Kumar @ Abhishek vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 July, 2025

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Monish Kumar @ Abhishek vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 July, 2025

1. The present application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 439 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 595/2024 registered under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 20233 at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar.

2. Briefly the Prosecution's case is as follows:

2.1 On 28th November, 2024, W/SI Manita, received a PCR call from a woman who stated that "ek ladke ke sath mere 3 saal purane rishte the usne 1 "BNSS"

"Cr.P.C."

BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31 kisi aur se shadi kar li hai" (I had a three-year-old relationship with a man who has now married someone else). The said PCR call was logged as DD No. 111A. Subsequently, on 29th November, 2024, the Prosecutrix ('S') lodged a detailed written complaint alleging harassment, threats, and sexual exploitation by the Applicant. She disclosed that she began conversing with the Applicant from 27th March, 2022, primarily via phone calls. Soon thereafter, the Applicant started following her, compelling her to visit his residence under threats of visiting her home himself or revealing their relationship to others. When she resisted, he would arrive uninvited at her home, exacerbating her distress.

2.2. In September, 2022, the Applicant took the Prosecutrix to the Sheetla Mata Mandir in Gurugram and applied sindoor on her forehead declaring that he loved her and that she was now his wife, assuring her that there was no need to worry further. Leveraging this purported marital bond, the Applicant engaged in physical relations with her over the next two years, during which he also threatened her husband. Despite claiming such marital status, the Applicant solemnized marriage with another woman on 28 th November, 2024. The Prosecutrix specifically alleged that the latest incident of sexual assault occurred on 18th November, 2024. Based on these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

2.3. During course of investigation the Prosecutrix ('S') underwent a medical examination at AIIMS Hospital (MLC No. 7801/2024). However, she refused internal medical examination, and the Urine Pregnancy Test (UPT) returned negative.

2.4. On 30th November, 2024, the Applicant was arrested in the present 3 "BNS"

BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 Page 2 of 9

This is a digitally signed order.

2.5 During the course of investigation the statement of the Prosecutrix was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.P.C.). Her statement substantially corroborated the allegations detailed in her initial complaint and FIR. Additionally, she submitted pictorial evidence of threats communicated to her via WhatsApp calls by the Applicant, which the investigating authorities duly seized.

2.6. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet has been submitted before Trial Court, and the trial proceedings are at the stage of arguments on charge.

3. Counsel for Applicant urges the following grounds for seeking bail:

3.1. The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, with the allegations of sexual assault being entirely concocted and devoid of factual basis.

3.2. It is undisputed that when interactions between the Prosecutrix and the Applicant commenced in March 2022, she had already been married to one Mr. 'N' since 2012, and also had a child from the said marriage. The Prosecutrix voluntarily maintained a consensual relationship with the Applicant for nearly three years thereafter, fully cognizant of her existing marital status. In these circumstances, the Prosecutrix's assertion of a false promise of marriage as the basis of the sexual relationship is both legally unsustainable and factually improbable, given the subsistence of her marriage throughout the relevant period.

3.3. The timing of the FIR makes it evident that the same is motivated by malice and vindictiveness rather than genuine grievance. Pertinently, the BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31 FIR was lodged immediately after the Applicant solemnised his marriage with another woman on 28th November, 2024. This chronological proximity strongly indicates that the criminal process has been weaponised as a tool for personal retaliation, amounting to a manifest abuse of law. 3.4. Furthermore, there are material inconsistencies and progressive embellishments in the Prosecutrix's narratives across her original complaint, the FIR, and her subsequent statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS. Such marked contradictions cast significant doubt on her credibility and create compelling suspicion regarding the authenticity of her claims.

3.5. Previously, the Prosecutrix had also lodged a complaint against the Applicant in 2022, which was subsequently withdrawn upon reaching a settlement. The Applicant and his family reportedly compensated her monetarily and with valuable articles, following which a written agreement explicitly stipulated that both parties would permanently cease contact. Despite this mutual understanding, it was the Prosecutrix herself who sought to resume the relationship, thereby undermining her current allegations and exposing her inconsistent stance.

3.6. The Applicant is a law-abiding citizen and has no prior criminal antecedents. He has been in custody since his arrest on 30 th November, 2024 and has spent over 6 months in custody. The chargesheet stands filed and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping Applicant in custody.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State and Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, counsel representing the Prosecutrix, oppose the present bail application. They characterise this case as one involving prolonged BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31 emotional manipulation and exploitation of a vulnerable woman. Despite her marital status, they argue that the Prosecutrix was systematically influenced, coerced, and intimidated by the Applicant, rendering her apparent consent invalid. They emphasise that the Applicant's physical relationship with the Prosecutrix was not a product of genuine consent but rather the result of persistent coercion, explicit threats, and deception through a fraudulent pretence of marriage.

5. Mr. Kumar, APP for the State further submits that the offence committed by the Applicant is of a grave and heinous in nature and the record reveals that he has been engaging in such behaviour on the false pretence of marriage since 2022. He further submits that the Applicant has also been extending threats to the Prosecutrix and her family members and in case he is released on bail, he may continue to threaten them or other witnesses and dissuade them from testifying against him. Moreover, he urges that the trial is at a nascent stage at this time and is listed for arguments on charge, thus, if the Applicant is granted bail, there is a possibility that he may abscond and evade the trial proceedings.

6. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions of the parties. It is a well settled principle of law that while considering a bail application, the Court must take several factors into consideration, such as whether any prima facie reasonable ground is made out to believe that the accused has committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the potential punishment, risk of the accused fleeing or obstructing justice, etc.4 However, at this juncture, the Court must avoid venturing into a detailed or exhaustive evaluation of evidence, lest the bail proceedings BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31 acquire the character of a mini-trial.5 At this stage, the task before this Court is limited only to forming a prima facie view of the evidentiary material available on record.

7. Undoubtedly, the allegations against the Applicant are grave, involving interpersonal relationships and consent. However, at this stage, it is neither permissible nor appropriate for this Court to conclusively determine whether the alleged relationship between the Applicant and the Prosecutrix was consensual or coercive in nature. These questions inherently require examination of evidence and the circumstances surrounding the interactions between the parties. These issues that must be adjudicated during trial. Any premature observation or conclusive finding by this Court on these sensitive questions have the potential of causing prejudice to either parties.

8. Nevertheless, a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that parties were in a relationship since 2022. The Prosecutrix herself explicitly acknowledges that at the time of her relationship with the Applicant, she was married to one Mr. 'N' and has a child from the marriage. It is also not in dispute that the said marriage has not been dissolved and is still subsisting. Thus, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, there seems to be merit in the contention of the Applicant that the allegation with respect to false pretence of marriage is somewhat unconvincing. A promise of marriage, as ordinarily understood in legal parlance, would logically lose persuasive force if extended to someone already bound by a subsisting marriage. However, as noted above, the crucial question as to whether the physical relationship between the 4 Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496.

See: Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar& Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 497 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31 Prosecutrix and Applicant was consensual or not, would have to be determined during the course of trial, after the parties lead their respective evidence.

9. Further, the Applicant has also placed material on record showing that the Prosecutrix previously filed a similar complaint against him in 2022, which she subsequently withdrew after a settlement. Following this agreement, both parties mutually decided to discontinue contact. Yet, the Prosecutrix later herself continued the relationship, as is evident from the WhatsApp communications placed on record. This resumption of contact, at least prima facie, lends credibility to the case of the Applicant at this preliminary stage.

10. It is noted that investigation in the matter is complete and a chargesheet stands filed. As per the nominal roll, the Applicant has been in custody for the past 7 months. Furthermore, he has clean antecedents and has not been involved in any previous criminal case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that pre-trial detention is not to be used as a substitute for punishment; that primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial6. Thus, with the investigation being completed and the chargesheet filed, in the opinion of the Court the continued incarceration of the Applicant will not serve any meaningful purpose. As regards the submission of the State pertaining to the alleged threats levelled by the Applicant against the Prosecutrix and her family, this Court is inclined to impose suitable conditions on him to ensure that the safety and security of the Prosecutrix and her family members is not 2020 (2) SCC 118.

See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 Page 7 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.

11. While the Court remains sensitive to the serious nature of the allegations raised, it must also bear in mind the equally fundamental principle that prolonged pre-trial incarceration should not become a substitute for punishment itself. Personal liberty remains a core constitutional right and must be cautiously balanced against apprehensions voiced by the prosecution. In this context, it is pertinent that no specific material has been shown to indicate that the Applicant poses a genuine risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Moreover, the imposition of appropriate protective conditions, such as prohibiting contact with the Prosecutrix or her family, restricting movements, periodic reporting at the concerned police station, can effectively neutralise any perceived threats or apprehensions. The bail must not be withheld merely on conjecture or speculative fear of interference with the trial.

12. Consequently, given the totality of circumstances, the Court is inclined to grant bail under strict conditions. Thus, the present application is allowed and the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, on the following conditions:

a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned Investigating Officer; b. The Applicant shall not contact the Prosecutrix or any of her family members under any circumstances and shall not reside within a 3 km radius of the vicinity where the Prosecutrix and her family reside. The Applicant Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31 shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; c. The Applicant shall not, under any circumstance, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

d. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court;

e. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;

f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times. g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first Friday of every month to mark his appearance;

13. 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.

14. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not influence the outcome of the trial and should also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

15. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 2, 2025 d.negi BAIL APPLN. 958/2025 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 04/07/2025 at 22:01:31

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders