A 63-year-old man walked out on bail after the court flagged gaps the system usually ignores—delay, missing medical evidence, and conflicting statements.
But the bigger question remains—how far can an accusation go before scrutiny finally begins?

A Delhi court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta, granted regular bail to a 63-year-old man accused in a rape case after closely examining serious gaps in the prosecution’s version. The court found that the case raised multiple doubts, and the overall facts did not support continued custody of the accused.

The accused had been in judicial custody since January 2, 2026, under charges of rape and causing hurt. However, during the hearing, a major turning point came when the complainant herself stated before the court:

“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,”

Clearly indicating her unwillingness to continue the case.

The defence pointed out several unusual aspects that weakened the prosecution’s story. It was highlighted that the complainant had been living away from her family for more than two years and was staying with a woman referred to as ‘M’, who, according to the complainant’s mother, “was getting wrong acts done” through the victim. This raised serious concerns about possible external influence on the complainant.

Further, it was argued that on the day of the alleged incident, the complainant was with the accused for around 90 minutes and made 42 phone calls during that period. Out of these, 22 calls were made to one particular person whose identity was not disclosed in the case records, creating further suspicion about the circumstances.

The court also examined the delay in filing the FIR. The incident allegedly took place on December 30, 2025, but the complaint was registered only on January 1, 2026. The judge clearly noted:

“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,”

Pointing out that such delay remained unexplained.

Another important observation was regarding the complainant’s conduct after the alleged incident. The court stated:

“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,”

Which further raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations.

The case also lacked medical support, as the complainant refused to undergo internal medical examination and could not clearly state the exact place where the alleged offence occurred. Additionally, discrepancies were found in the call detail records, with the court observing:

“The alleged call record between victim and the lady namely ‘M’ at the time of incident is not reflected in the CDR on record”.

Considering all these factors, along with the fact that the investigation was complete, chargesheet had been filed, and the accused had no previous criminal record, the court found it appropriate to grant bail. The accused, being a senior citizen, was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to strict conditions including not contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved

Case Details

• Case Title: State vs. X
• Court: Delhi Court (Sessions Court)
• Judge: Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta
• Date of Order: March 17, 2026
• Accused: 63-year-old male
• Custody Since: January 2, 2026

Key Takeaways

• Allegation alone is not proof—courts look at conduct, consistency, and evidence before restricting a man’s liberty.
• Delay in FIR and refusal of medical examination can seriously weaken even the most serious accusations.
• External influence and unexplained call patterns raise red flags that cannot be ignored at the bail stage.
• When the complainant herself withdraws, continuing custody becomes legally unjustified, not justice.
• Bail is not a favour—it is a right, especially when evidence is shaky and the system cannot justify prolonged detention.

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.