$~1
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
%					                    Date of Decision: 12.01.2026
+ 	BAIL APPLN. 688/2025
	MANOJ@ LEKHRAJ					.....Petitioner
				Through:	Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate 

				versus

	STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI			.....Respondent
Through:	Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Pratiksha, PS Prem Nagar 
Ms. Surbhi, counsel for complainant de facto 

	CORAM:          JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
				
J U D G M E N T    (ORAL)
1.	The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 635/2023 of PS Prem Nagar for offence under Section 354/354A/376/506/509 IPC and Section 4/8 POCSO Act.
2.	Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows.  The prosecutrix X, aged about 17 year, is residing with her parents and other members of the family.   In her complaint, on the basis whereof the FIR was registered Ms. X explained the manner in which her neighbour, the accused/applicant and one Sagar and his maternal uncle Prashant used to harass her sexually but she continue to tolerate. On 12.11.2023 on the occasion of Diwali, when she went to light lamps in the cowshed behind her house, the present accused/applicant reached there and despite her resistance, raped her. When she cried, the accused/applicant threatened her. Thereafter, again on 24.11.2023, the accused/applicant insisted her to indulge in sexual relations with him, otherwise he would again rape her. At that stage, she narrated the entire facts to her brother, after which her statement in detail was recorded leading to the FIR in question. 
3. 	As reflected from record, this bail application was repeatedly adjourned for past about 11 months before the learned predecessor bench for one or the other reasons and today the matter has come up before me for the first time.
4. 	Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the FIR was got registered as a counterblast on account of the allegation that cousin of the complainant de facto had eloped with the brother in law of the accused/applicant.  No other argument has been advanced on behalf of accused/applicant.
5. 	Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Pratiksha as well as learned counsel for prosecutrix submits that the prosecutrix, who was allegedly raped as well as her sister, who was beaten up by the accused/applicant are yet to be examined completely before the trial court.  It is submitted by learned prosecutor that co-accused Sagar has been threatening the prosecutrix, so she expresses apprehension and against Sagar proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have already been initiated. 
6. 	Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is dismissed.




GIRISH KATHPALIA
     (JUDGE)
JANUARY 12, 2026/as




BAIL APPLICATION 688/2025		                           		            Page 3 of 3 pages