BAIL APPLN./3111/2025 of PAVAN MISHRA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025 & CRL.M.A. 24160/2025, CRL.M.(BAIL)1741/2025PAVAN MISHRA.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Mr. HarshithPottangiandMs.AashiArora,Advocates.1741/2025PAVAN MISHRA.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Mr. HarshithPottangiandMs.AashiArora,Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for theState.SI Monu Kumari and SI Teena.Mr. Sayed Saif Ali Jafri, Advocate forComplainant.Complainant through VC.Through:Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for theState.SI Monu Kumari and SI Teena.Mr. Sayed Saif Ali Jafri, Advocate forComplainant.Complainant through VC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R19.09.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising fromFIR No. 759/2024 registered under Sections 376/506 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860[3]at P.S. Dabri.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1On 21[st]November 2024, the subject FIR was registered on the

1 “BNSS”2 “Cr.P.C.”

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025

complaint of “P”, aged 24 years, against the Applicant, Pavan Mishra. Thecomplainant stated that on 29[th]January, 2024, during her niece’s birthdaycelebration, she met the accused, who showed her video of her bathing andthreatened to make it public if she did not comply with his demands.Nonetheless, they remained in contact, and in February, 2024, he invited herto his brother’s wedding in Lucknow, where he took her to his sister’s houseand forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Subsequently, he madeher stay in hotel (Trivedi) in Lucknow and assaulted her again. In March2024, he called her to hotel in Janakpuri, where he sexually assaulted heronce again. Thereafter, posing as her employer before her father andclaiming he was facing certain problems, he began staying at her house,where he again had sexual intercourse with her under the false promise ofmarriage. He would also click photographs of her and would coerce her intosending selfies. She later conceived as result of their relationship. Onlearning of this, the Applicant insisted on an abortion, but the complainantrefused. Subsequently, he gave her some pills under the pretext of treatingvomiting, which instead caused heavy bleeding and resulted in thetermination of the pregnancy. The Applicant and his family, despiteknowledge of the situation, declined to proceed with marriage and on 7[th]November, 2024, he and his sister physically assaulted the complainant. Thelast act of sexual assault occurred on 25[th]October, 2024 at her residence.

2.2.On 21[st]November, 2024, the Applicant was arrested. His mobilephone was seized and his medical examination was conducted. He wasthereafter sent to judicial custody. The father of the victim was alsoexamined, and his statement under Section 180 BNSS was recorded,

3 “IPC”

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025

corroborating the complainant’s version. On 12[th]December, 2024, theaccused moved bail application before the Sessions Court, which wasdismissed on 19[th]December, 2024.

2.3.Notices were issued to BM Gupta Hospital, DDU Hospital, TrivediHotel (Lucknow) and Royal Residency Hotel (East Janakpuri) to obtaintreatment records concerning the victim’s abortion and hotel records relatingto the accused and the victim. The verified treatment records, along with theconsent form, and the hotel records were collected and taken intopossession. Subsequently, notices were served upon Richa Mishra, the sisterof the Applicant, who joined the investigation; her interrogation report wasprepared and she was bound down. After completion of investigation, achargesheet under Sections 376/506 IPC was filed before the Court andcharges have been framed.

3.Counsel for the Applicant argues that the parties were in consensualrelationship, as evidenced by the complainant’s continued interaction withthe applicant. Her willingness to meet him on several occasions despite theallegations of sexual assault, clearly reveal case of false implication. Thechargesheet has already been filed, and no further investigation is required,making the continued custody of the Applicant unnecessary. It is furtherpointed out that there is delay of approximately nine months in filing theFIR from the date of the first alleged incident, and the complainant’sstatement under Section 183 BNSS show material improvements regardingthe incident on 29[th]January, 2024. No photographs/videos as alleged by thecomplainant were recovered from the mobile phone of the Applicant. Inaddition, the FSL report of the mobile phone seized during investigation hasbeen delayed, and the phone itself remains in custody, preventing any

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025

possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. TheApplicant has no prior criminal antecedents and has already undergoneincarceration for period of nine months and sixteen days. In view of theabove, it is submitted that the Applicant ought to be released on bail.

4.On the other, Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State, and Counsel forthe complainant, oppose the bail application on multiple grounds. Theysubmit that the Applicant is implicated in serious offence under Section376 IPC, involving repeated acts of sexual assault. The FSL report of themobile phone seized from the Applicant is still awaited, and it is noted thatthe phone had been completely wiped, raising suspicion and highlighting thepossibility of destruction of crucial evidence. The statements of thecomplainant are consistent, providing coherent account of the incidents.The Medical records discovered during investigation confirm that thecomplainant conceived as result of the relationship between the parties andsubsequently suffered miscarriage. It is further contended that thecomplainant attempted to commit suicide on 5[th]November, 2024, followingthe Applicant’s refusal to marry her. In light of these circumstances, the FIRwas registered on 21[st]November, 2024, and any apparent delay is explainedby the Applicant’s repeated false assurances of marriage, which misled thecomplainant.

5.The Court has considered the facts and the submissions advanced. It iswell established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that theobject of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aimsought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused

person at the trial.[4]

6.The first alleged incident, as per the prosecution, occurred in February2024, whereas the FIR was registered only on 21[st]November 2024, nearly 9months later. The record further indicates that the Complainant and theApplicant continued to remain in contact and cohabitation for considerableperiod following the alleged incidents. While the law recognises that delayin reporting sexual offences may be explained by factors such as trauma,fear, or societal pressure, the prolonged and unexplained delay in the facts ofthe present case, coupled with the apparent consensual association betweenthe parties, prima facie affects the evidentiary weight of the allegations atthe stage of considering bail.

7.Furthermore, prima facie, there appears to be an improvementbetween the initial complaint/FIR and, the subsequent statements underSection 183 BNSS and the statement made to the doctor in the MLC,regarding the circumstances of the first meeting and the alleged blackmailemployed by the Applicant. While in the complaint/FIR, the Complainantdescribed general interaction where the Applicant asked for her numberand later invited her to function, in her later statement under Section 183BNSS,sheintroducedspecificallegationsofblackmailthroughcompromising videos. The veracity of these allegations and the significanceof such variations in the narrative are matters to be adjudicated during trial.Nonetheless, these inconsistencies, at this stage, prima facie weigh in favourof granting bail to the Applicant.

4 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025

8.The mobile phone of the Applicant has been seized and sent forforensic examination. Although, the FSL report is awaited, admittedly, aprima facie examination indicates that no videos or photographs of thecomplainant were found on the device.

9.The Court is apprised that the hotel records of Trivedi Hotel,Lucknow, disclose that the complainant and the Applicant checked intogether. The records prima facie indicate that the parties voluntarily stayedtogether at the hotel.

10.It is noted that the chargesheet has already been filed and chargeshave been framed. The investigation stands completed, and no furthercustodial interrogation is required. As per the nominal roll, the Applicant hasundergone 9 Months, 16 Days in custody as on 6[th]September, 2025, and hisconduct in jail is satisfactory. Further, there are no criminal antecedents orpending cases against the Applicant.

11.In view of the foregoing discussion, and without commenting on themerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Applicant has madeout case for grant of bail. The material on record, the prolonged andunexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, absence of corroborative evidenceat this stage and the nature of the association between the parties,cumulatively weigh in favour of granting bail.

12.The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail onfurnishing personal bond for sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on thefollowing conditions:

a.The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as andwhen directed by the concerned IO;

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025

b.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

c.The Applicant shall not contact the victim or any of her familymembers;

d.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country withoutthe permission of the Trial Court;

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

f.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/ SHO;

g.The Applicant shall not reside within 3 km radius of the residence ofthe victim and shall also furnish proof of his residence to the concerned IO.The Applicant shall also not move in the vicinity of the victim in anymanner.

h.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.i.The Applicant shall report to the concerned P.S. on the first Friday ofevery month;

13.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.14.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025

the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

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

SANJEEV NARULA, JSEPTEMBER 19, 2025d.negi

BAIL APPLN. 3111/2025