{"id":5941,"date":"2026-03-25T16:24:36","date_gmt":"2026-03-25T10:54:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=5941"},"modified":"2026-03-25T16:22:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T10:52:56","slug":"rape-case-bail-63yo-court-gaps","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/rape-case-bail-63yo-court-gaps\/","title":{"rendered":"False Rape Case Against 63-Year-Old? Delhi Court Grants Bail to Senior Citizen Due to FIR Delay, No Medical Examination, and Gaps in the Prosecution\u2019s Story"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A 63-year-old man walked out on bail after the court flagged gaps the system usually ignores\u2014delay, missing medical evidence, and conflicting statements.
But the bigger question remains\u2014how far can an accusation go before scrutiny finally begins?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A Delhi court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Kharta<\/strong>, granted regular bail to a 63-year-old man accused in a rape<\/a> case after closely examining serious gaps in the prosecution\u2019s version.<\/strong> The court found that the case raised multiple doubts<\/strong>, and the overall facts did not support continued custody of the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\n

\u201cVictim 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,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Clearly indicating her unwillingness to continue the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defence pointed out several unusual aspects that weakened the prosecution\u2019s story. It was highlighted that the complainant had been living away from her family for more than two years<\/strong> and was staying with a woman referred to as \u2018M\u2019, who, according to the complainant\u2019s mother, \u201cwas getting wrong acts done\u201d through the victim. This raised serious concerns about possible external influence<\/strong> on the complainant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Pointing out that such delay remained unexplained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another important observation was regarding the complainant\u2019s conduct after the alleged incident. The court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe victim had not consulted her mother or father, and rather she had consulted one lady namely \u2018M\u2019, against whom the mother of victim has put serious allegations in her statement,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Which further raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\n

\u201cThe alleged call record between victim and the lady namely \u2018M\u2019 at the time of incident is not reflected in the CDR on record\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td>Purpose (Simple Explanation)<\/strong><\/td>How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 64(1), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Defines and punishes the offence of rape<\/td>This was the main charge against the accused. However, the court found inconsistencies in the complaint, lack of medical evidence, and unclear facts, weakening the allegation at the bail stage<\/td><\/tr>
Section 115(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)<\/strong><\/td>Deals with voluntarily causing hurt<\/td>Added as a supporting charge, but no strong supporting material or medical evidence was presented to justify continued custody<\/td><\/tr>
Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) \/ Corresponding Bail Powers<\/strong><\/td>Gives Sessions Court power to grant regular bail in serious offences<\/td>The court exercised this power after noting weak evidence, completed investigation, and no need for further custody<\/td><\/tr>
Bail Jurisprudence (General Principles)<\/strong><\/td>Ensures that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially when trial will take time<\/td>Applied considering the accused is a 63-year-old senior citizen, has no criminal history, and chargesheet is already filed<\/td><\/tr>
Evidence Act \u2013 Credibility & Consistency of Witness<\/strong><\/td>Courts assess reliability of statements based on consistency and conduct<\/td>The complainant\u2019s delay, contradictions, refusal for medical exam, and reliance on third-party \u2018M\u2019 raised serious doubts about credibility<\/td><\/tr>
Medical Examination Principles in Sexual Offences<\/strong><\/td>Medical evidence helps support or contradict allegations<\/td>The complainant refused internal medical examination, which weakened the prosecution\u2019s case at the bail stage<\/td><\/tr>
FIR<\/a> Principles (Prompt Reporting)<\/strong><\/td>Timely FIR strengthens credibility of allegations<\/td>Court noted unexplained delay of two days despite visiting the police station earlier, creating doubt in prosecution story<\/td><\/tr>
Call Detail Records (CDR) Evidence<\/strong><\/td>Used to verify movements, communication, and timeline<\/td>Discrepancies in call records, especially missing calls with \u2018M\u2019, weakened the prosecution\u2019s version<\/td><\/tr>
Witness Protection \/ Non-Interference Conditions<\/strong><\/td>Ensures accused does not influence witnesses or tamper evidence during bail<\/td>Court imposed strict conditions: no contact with complainant, no tampering, and mandatory cooperation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n