Delhi High Court on Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Gang Rape Case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of gang rape under Sections 70(1)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 376D/506/34 IPC). The Court observed that the sequence of events, unexplained delay of eight months in filing the FIR, and prior enmity between the parties raised doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution’s case. Considering the applicant’s cooperation and the filing of the chargesheet, anticipatory bail was deemed appropriate, subject to conditions.

• The petitioner, Aamir, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 in connection with FIR No. 173/2025 registered at P.S. Anand Vihar, Delhi.

• The FIR alleged that on 18.07.2024, the complainant “B” (aged 45 years) was lured by Aamir and co-accused Mohd. Afzal under the pretext of financial assistance through a Muslim organization and was allegedly raped near Cross River Mall, Delhi.

• The complaint was filed on 09.04.2025, nearly eight months after the alleged incident.

• Aamir contended that he was falsely implicated at the behest of Irshad @ Guddu Chaudhary, against whom his sister Shumaila had filed FIR No. 116/2024 for sexual assault and blackmail.

• Aamir had lodged a complaint with the DCP, Daryaganj, on 04.04.2025 alleging that Irshad threatened to falsely implicate him in a rape case and demanded ₹10 lakhs as extortion money.

• Despite his complaint, an FIR was registered against him days later on similar lines as the threats he had previously reported.

• The FIR is mala fide, filed as retaliation by Irshad, and constitutes abuse of process of law.

• There is an unexplained delay of over eight months in lodging the FIR, which weakens the prosecution’s credibility.

• No direct evidence or interaction between the complainant and the applicant has been established.

• The complainant’s daughter allegedly interned with Irshad, suggesting collusion.

• The applicant, aged 28, recently married, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes full cooperation with the investigation.

• The State opposed the anticipatory bail citing the seriousness of the allegations.

• The complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC) corroborated her FIR, and the medical examination (MLC No. 39/25) supported her version.

• CDR records placed the applicant near the location of the offence.

• The applicant had been absconding, and two previous bail applications had already been dismissed.

• The FIR was filed eight months after the alleged incident, and the complainant’s explanation for the delay was vague. Such unexplained delay, combined with the backdrop of enmity, casts doubt on the prosecution’s case.

• The sequence of events — including the prior complaint by the applicant against Irshad and the subsequent filing of the FIR — suggests possible malice.

• The applicant and co-accused allegedly provided their contact numbers to the complainant, which appears inconsistent with the conduct of guilty persons.

• Given that the chargesheet was already filed, the investigation substantially complete, and no risk of tampering or absconding was shown, anticipatory bail was justified.

• The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of like amount.

• The applicant must:

1. Join investigation as required.
2. Keep his mobile phone active and available for contact.
3. Not contact or influence witnesses.
4. Not tamper with evidence or prejudice the trial.
5. • The petition was disposed of, with observations not to affect the merits of the trial.

• Sections 70(1)/351(2)/3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Corresponding to Sections 376D/506/34 IPC (gang rape, criminal intimidation, common intention).

• Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Inherent powers of the High Court.

• Section 183, BNSS (equivalent to Section 164 CrPC) – Recording of statements before a Magistrate.

Citation: 2025:DEL:84612

Case: Aamir v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 2246/2025, CRL.M.A. 18032/2025