The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl, citing inconsistencies in the minor’s statements and a lack of supporting forensic evidence.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in an order dated May 21, observed that although it would be inappropriate at this stage to comment on the merits of the case, the record reflected conflicting versions given by the prosecutrix. “Needless to state that there are conflicting statements of the prosecutrix at this stage,” the judge noted.
The court also highlighted that forensic analysis did not corroborate the allegation of sexual assault. According to the court’s order, no male DNA profile was generated from the forensic samples submitted for examination.
The allegations trace back to September 2023, when the girl initially accused her father of sexually assaulting her at their home. An FIR was lodged and the father was arrested, though he was later released on bail. However, in October, the girl’s mother approached the police again, asserting that her daughter had revealed new facts and that the actual perpetrator was their neighbor, a barber by profession.
The counsel for the accused argued that the man was not named in the original FIR and was falsely implicated later at the instigation of the mother. He further submitted that the petitioner had already cooperated with the investigation and that no credible evidence linked him to the crime.
On the other hand, the prosecution claimed that the girl refrained from naming the accused initially out of fear, alleging that he had issued threats to kill her.
Despite these arguments, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of the man’s arrest, he should be released on furnishing a personal bond and surety of ₹30,000 each.
The bail conditions also prohibit the accused from contacting or intimidating the girl or her family in any manner, and require him to continue cooperating with the investigation.
The matter remains under trial and the court has refrained from making further observations to avoid prejudicing the proceedings.
