Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1/6
1 SC 243/2025
STATE OF DELHI VS. SAURAV BENIWAL
FIR No. 232/2025
PS (SAGARPUR)
22.09.2026
Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. PP for the State.
Sh. Anand Kumar Singh and Sh. S.D. Shah, Ld.
Counsels for accused.
Arguments on bail application heard.
Put up for orders at 02:30 P.M.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
ASJ (POCSO) -06/PHC/NDD
22.09.2026
At 02:30 PM.
Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. PP for the State.
Sh. Anand Kumar Singh and Sh. S.D. Shah, Ld.
Counsels for accused.
ORDER
1. The present application is being filed under Section 483
BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the applicant/accused Saurav Beniwal s/o
Sh. Jagdish Beniwal seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No.
232/2025, PS Sagarpur, under Sections 65(2)/70/351(2) BNS and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. It has been argued that the applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been in
judicial custody since 20.06.2025 and has already undergone
substantial incarceration. The investigation is complete and charge-
sheet has been filed before this Court. Hence, no further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required. The prosecution case
against the applicant suffers from material omissions, contradictions
and improvements, which are matters to be tested during trial. The
-- 1 of 6 --
2/6
independent witness Dr. Hansraj, landlord of the premises, has, as
per his statement under Section 180 BNSS, not supported the
allegations against the present applicant and has stated that he
neither knew nor had ever seen the applicant. He further stated that
on the relevant date he found a quarrel between the complainant and
co-accused Jagdish Beniwal. The victim, during her deposition, also
stated regarding the quarrel between her mother and co-accused
Jagdish Beniwal and that she had gone downstairs to call the
landlord. The victim further stated that she did not remember the
exact dates, months and particulars of the alleged incidents. It is also
relevant that the name of the present applicant was not specifically
mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. No
independent, scientific or forensic material connecting the applicant
with the alleged offence has been pointed out. The victim, who is the
material prosecution witness, has already been examined before this
Court. Therefore, the apprehension of the applicant influencing her
testimony does not survive to the same extent. The prosecution
evidence is still incomplete and the trial is likely to take considerable
time. On 04.06.2026, the complainant/mother of the victim could not
be cross-examined and the matter was adjourned. That continued
incarceration of the applicant, despite completion of investigation
and filing of charge-sheet, would serve no useful purpose. The
applicant's right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21
of the Constitution of India is also required to be kept in view. The
applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi, has clean antecedents and
is not involved in any other criminal case. There is no likelihood of
his absconding or fleeing from the process of law. The applicant
undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court and shall
-- 2 of 6 --
3/6
neither contact nor influence or intimidate any prosecution witness.
That reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ishwar Chand Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Anr., 2026 INSC 587, wherein the Hon'ble Court has emphasized the
need for specific and substantive material where allegations are
vague or omnibus. The applicant craves leave to rely upon the said
judgment at the time of arguments.
GROUNDS:
A. Because the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
already been filed.
B. Because the applicant has undergone substantial period of
incarceration.
C. Because the victim has already been examined before the Court.
D. Because the prosecution evidence is still incomplete and the trial
is likely to take considerable time.
E. Because material omissions and contradictions have been pointed
out in the prosecution case.
F. Because the independent witness Dr. Hansraj does not support the
allegations against the present applicant.
G. Because the applicant has clean antecedents and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence.
H. Because no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
applicant in custody for an indefinite period during the pendency of
trial.
I. Because the applicant undertakes to comply with all conditions
imposed by this Hon'ble Court.
3. Mother of the victim has already opposed the bail
application on 03.09.2026. Further, Ld. APP for the State has also
-- 3 of 6 --
4/6
opposed the bail application on the ground that the allegations
against the accused are heinous and the co-accused is yet to be
apprehended. The accused is son of the co-accused who has been
declared absconder and grant of bail to the accused may hamper the
efforts of prosecution to apprehend the co-accused and therefore,
accused should not be granted bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The applicant has been in judicial custody since
20.06.2025 and has already undergone approximately ten months of
incarceration. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has
already been filed. Therefore, no further custodial interrogation of
the applicant is stated to be required.
6. It is also relevant to note that the victim as well as
mother of victim, who are the material prosecution witnesses, have
already been examined before the Court. Thus, at this stage, the
apprehension of the applicant influencing the said witnesses is
substantially reduced. The prosecution evidence is yet to be
completed and the trial is likely to take some time. All the remaining
witnesses are public witnesses. At this stage, this Court is not
required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or return
any finding on the merits of the prosecution case.
7. The applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of
Delhi and to have clean antecedents. There is no material before the
Court, at this stage, to suggest that the applicant is likely to abscond
or evade the process of law. The applicant has also undertaken to
abide by all conditions imposed by the Court and not to contact,
influence or intimidate any prosecution witness.
-- 4 of 6 --
5/6
8. It is well settled that the object of bail is to secure the
presence of the accused during trial and that pre-trial detention is not
intended to operate as punishment. At the same time, the seriousness
of the allegations and the statutory provisions applicable to the case
have been kept in consideration. Having regard to the totality of
circumstances, including the period of custody already undergone,
completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, examination of
the victim and the stage of trial, this Court is of the view that the
applicant can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present bail
application is allowed.
The applicant/accused Saurav Beniwal is directed to be
released on regular bail in FIR No. 232/2025, PS Sagarpur, subject to
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety
in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty
MM, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of
hearing unless exempted by the Court.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact, threaten,
induce, influence or intimidate the complainant, victim or any
prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in
any manner.
(iv) The applicant shall furnish his current address and mobile
number to the IO/Trial Court and shall intimate any change thereof
forthwith.
(v) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
the Court.
(vi) The applicant shall comply with all other conditions as may be
imposed by the Trial Court.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be
-- 5 of 6 --
6/6
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Bail
application stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to concerned Jail Superintendent
immediately to communicate the same to the accused/ applicant and
for necessary information and intimation in compliance of
guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Copy of order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
ASJ (POCSO) -06/PHC/NDD
22.09.2026
-- 6 of 6 --