Delhi court grants bail to 63-year-old in rape case, questions timeline and evidence

ANew delhi margaret court has granted fixture bond to a 63-year-old adult male accused in a rape case, noting inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, delay in lodging the FIR and refusal of medical examination by the complainant.Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount.The accused had been in judicial custody since January 2, 2026, after being charged under sections 64(1) (rape) and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita."Victim who is present before the court along with her counsel submits that she does not want to pursue the present case and hence accused/applicant may be granted bail," said the court in its order dated March 17.The counsel for the defence brought up several peculiarities in the case. He highlighted the statement of the mother of the victim, who had said she had severed relations with the victim shortly after she left their house more than two years ago and decided to reside with a lady 'M', who "was getting wrong acts done" through the victim.He said this lady 'M' had accompanied the victim to the police station on the day of the incident and on the day the FIR was registered. He submitted that the victim was perhaps used by the lady 'M'.He argued that at the time of the incident, the victim was with the accused for 90 minutes during which she made 42 calls, out of which 22 calls were with one specific person whose name had not been brought on record.The incident occurred on December 30, 2025, and the FIR was registered on January 1. The court noted the gap of two days was never explained by the victim."The victim in the present case had not given a complaint to the police on the date of the incident despite the fact that she visited the PS (on December 30) and she had given the complaint after a delay of two days," said the court."The victim had not consulted her mother or father, and rather she had consulted one lady namely 'M', against whom the mother of victim has put serious allegations in her statement," said the court.The judge also took note of the complainant's refusal to undergo an internal medical examination and her inability to specify the exact location of the alleged offence.The order additionally pointed out discrepancies in call detail records, stating that "the alleged call record between victim and the lady namely 'M' at the time of incident is not reflected in the CDR on record".A significant factor in granting bail was the complainant's submission before the court that she did not wish to pursue the case. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, as he argued the accused had committed a heinous crime and the charges were yet to be framed, with the complainant yet to be examined as a prosecution witness.The court also considered that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed, and that the accused had no prior criminal involvement and was a senior citizen.The court imposed several bail conditions on the accused, including keeping his mobile phone on at all times, not contacting prosecution witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and not approaching the complainant.