A Delhi court granted regular bail to a 63-year-old man accused in a rape case, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution case, delay in lodging an FIR, and the complainant’s refusal to undergo medical examination.
Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta granted bail to the accused on a personal surety of Rs. 50,000 with one guarantee of the same amount.
The accused has 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 appearing before the court along with her lawyer confirms that she does not wish to pursue the present case and hence the accused/applicant can be released on bail,” the court said in its order dated March 17.
The defense lawyer raised several peculiarities in the case. He highlighted the statements of the victim’s mother, who said that she broke off her relationship with the victim shortly after she left her home more than two years ago and decided to stay with Mrs. M, who “was committing wrongful acts” through the victim.
He said that this woman M accompanied the victim to the police station on the day of the incident and the day of registration of the FIR. He stated that the victim may have been used by Mrs M.
He said that at the time of the incident, the victim was with the accused for 90 minutes, during which she made 42 calls, of which 22 calls were to a specific person whose name was not recorded.
The incident occurred on December 30, 2025, and an FIR was registered on January 1. The court noted that the two-day gap was never explained by the victim.
“The victim in this case did not file a complaint with the police on the date of the incident even though she visited the PS (on December 30) and filed the complaint after a delay of two days,” the court said.
The court said, “The victim did not consult her mother or father, but rather consulted a woman named “M,” against whom the victim’s mother made serious accusations in her statements.”
The judge also took note of the complainant’s refusal to undergo an internal medical examination and her inability to pinpoint the exact location of the alleged crime.
In addition, the order pointed out inconsistencies in call detail records, stating that “the alleged call history between the victim and Ms M at the time of the incident is not reflected in the recorded phone call record.”
An important factor in granting bail was the complainant’s declaration before the court that she did not wish to pursue the case. However, the bail application was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, who said that the accused had committed a heinous crime and charges had not yet been framed and the complainant had not yet been examined as a prosecution witness.
The court also considered that the investigation had concluded and the indictment had been submitted, and that the accused had no previous criminal involvement and was an elderly citizen.
The court imposed several bail conditions on the accused, including keeping his mobile phone open at all times, not contacting prosecution witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and not approaching the complainant.
