Delhi courtroom grants bail to 63-year-old in rape case, questions timeline and proof| India Information
A Delhi courtroom has granted common bail to a 63-year-old man accused in a rape case, noting inconsistencies within the prosecution’s case, delay in lodging the FIR and refusal of medical examination by the complainant.
Extra Periods Decide Virender Kumar Kharta granted bail to the accused on a private bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like quantity.
The accused had been in judicial custody since January 2, 2026, after being charged underneath sections 64(1) (rape) and 115(2) (voluntarily inflicting damage) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
“Sufferer who’s current earlier than the courtroom alongside along with her counsel submits that she doesn’t need to pursue the current case and therefore accused/applicant could also be granted bail,” mentioned the courtroom in its order dated March 17.
The counsel for the defence introduced up a number of peculiarities within the case. He highlighted the assertion of the mom of the sufferer, who had mentioned she had severed relations with the sufferer shortly after she left their home greater than two years in the past and determined to reside with a girl ‘M’, who “was getting mistaken acts performed” by means of the sufferer.
He mentioned this girl ‘M’ had accompanied the sufferer to the police station on the day of the incident and on the day the FIR was registered. He submitted that the sufferer was maybe utilized by the girl ‘M’.
He argued that on the time of the incident, the sufferer was with the accused for 90 minutes throughout which she made 42 calls, out of which 22 calls have been with one particular individual whose identify had not been introduced on document.
The incident occurred on December 30, 2025, and the FIR was registered on January 1. The courtroom famous the hole of two days was by no means defined by the sufferer.
“The sufferer within the current case had not given a criticism to the police on the date of the incident even though she visited the PS (on December 30) and she or he had given the criticism after a delay of two days,” mentioned the courtroom.
“The sufferer had not consulted her mom or father, and relatively she had consulted one girl specifically ‘M’, towards whom the mom of sufferer has put severe allegations in her assertion,” mentioned the courtroom.
The decide additionally took notice of the complainant’s refusal to endure an inner medical examination and her incapacity to specify the precise location of the alleged offence.
The order moreover identified discrepancies in name element information, stating that “the alleged name document between sufferer and the girl specifically ‘M’ on the time of incident shouldn’t be mirrored within the CDR on document”.
A major consider granting bail was the complainant’s submission earlier than the courtroom that she didn’t want to pursue the case. Nevertheless, the Extra Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, as he argued the accused had dedicated a heinous crime and the fees have been but to be framed, with the complainant but to be examined as a prosecution witness.
The courtroom additionally thought-about that the investigation had been accomplished and the chargesheet filed, and that the accused had no prior prison involvement and was a senior citizen.
The courtroom imposed a number of bail situations on the accused, together with holding his cell phone on always, not contacting prosecution witnesses, not tampering with proof, and never approaching the complainant.
Leave a Reply