Delhi High Court Cancels Bail In Janakpuri School Rape Case, Says 3-Year-Old Victim's Version Can't Be Rejected Due To Absence Of Injuries
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail granted to a school caretaker accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old nursery student, holding that the trial court failed to adequately consider the child's consistent version of events.
Justice Vinod Kumar allowed petitions filed by the State and the victim's mother challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting regular bail to the accused in an FIR registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
“Victim identified the respondent as offender. There is nothing on record at this stage to indicate any motive for falsely implicating the respondent by minor child or her parents,” it observed.
According to the prosecution, the three-year-old victim, who had joined a junior school in the city's Janakpuri area only two days earlier, complained to her mother after returning home on April 30 that a big boy at school had inserted his finger into her private part, causing pain and bleeding.
During the investigation, she identified the school caretaker as the perpetrator and also identified the room in the school where the incident allegedly occurred. CCTV footage placed the accused inside the junior wing during the relevant period.
The trial court had granted bail primarily on the grounds that the CCTV footage showed the accused leaving the junior wing around 8:37 a.m., the medical examination did not reveal external injuries, custodial interrogation was no longer required, and the accused had cooperated with the investigation.
Setting aside the order, the High Court noted that the accused was granted bail merely a week after his arrest when the investigation was still at a crucial stage and forensic reports, including the FSL examination of seized exhibits and CCTV equipment, were still awaited.
It added that the victim's account could not be discarded merely because she initially did not name the accused or because the medical examination did not reveal external injuries.
“Learned Additional Sessions Judge missed a very important fact that the victim is barely three years old and such a small child cannot be equated with an adult victim, who can narrate the facts in proper sequence with accuracy of time. A child of such tender age may appear to be incoherent and sometimes even illogical but that does not mean that what a child is saying is incorrect,” the Court observed.
Reliance was placed on X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court while considering bail in POCSO case, held that courts must give due weight to the gravity of the offence, the statutory object of the POCSO Act and the vulnerability of the child victim.
As such, the Court set aside the bail order and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court on July 1.
Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Aman Usman, APP For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
Case title: State v. Lalit Kumar
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 3956/2026