Delhi HC Refuses Bail to Maulvi Accused of Raping Minor Girl on Pretext of Curing Her of Evil Spirits, Cites Gravity of Allegations and Advanced Stage of Trial [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl under the guise of spiritual treatment, holding that the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material on record, and the advanced stage of trial did not warrant grant of bail.

Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissing the application, also requested the trial court to make all endeavours to expedite the trial, noting that the applicant had remained in custody for a considerable period.

The case arises from FIR No. 553/2019 registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, Delhi. According to the prosecution, on 09.10.2019, a PCR call regarding sexual assault upon a girl was received at the police station. The prosecutrix, along with her parents, came to the station where her counselling was conducted in the presence of her parents.

In her statement, the prosecutrix stated that as she had been unwell for several years, her family believed she was under the influence of an evil spirit and had begun taking her to faith healers. On the advice of her father’s friend, she was taken to the applicant, who claimed to be a Maulvi residing in Mubarakpur, for treatment on 08.10.2019. She alleged that during the visit, the accused asked her strange and inappropriate questions while she was alone with him. The accused later visited her house in the evening, sent the family members outside the room, told her she was under the influence of a jinn that could only be removed through obscene acts, and thereafter committed sexual assault upon her. Out of fear, she did not immediately disclose the incident, but narrated it to her mother the next morning, following which the police were informed.

The prosecutrix was medically examined at SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri. On the basis of her statement and medical examination, the FIR was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

During investigation, the applicant was arrested and the relevant exhibits were seized and sent to the FSL for DNA profiling. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before a Magistrate, wherein she disclosed repeated sexual assault, following which Section 4 of the POCSO Act was substituted with Section 6. The school records of the prosecutrix revealed her date of birth as 24.11.2002. A charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Court, where the matter is presently pending trial.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since 10.10.2019, for more than six years, amounting to an infringement of his right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial. It was argued that investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and 12 out of 18 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, including the prosecutrix, her father, and her mother. It was further contended that forensic reports had been placed on record, leaving no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The counsel also argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix was unreliable and that there were discrepancies in the testimonies of material witnesses.

The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application, submitting that the allegations were grave and serious, involving repeated sexual assault upon a minor. It was argued that the applicant had taken advantage of the vulnerable condition of the prosecutrix and the blind faith of her family, who had approached him believing he could cure her through spiritual treatment. The State further submitted that the trial was at a fag end and no ground for bail was made out.

The Court observed that the material on record prima facie reflected that the applicant had taken undue advantage of the vulnerable physical and mental condition of the prosecutrix and the blind faith reposed in him by her family. The Court noted that instead of providing any help, the applicant had allegedly misused that trust and exploited the prosecutrix under the guise of treatment. The statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and the testimony of the prosecutrix before the trial court both supported the prosecution case.

On the contention regarding discrepancies in witness testimonies, the Court held that credibility and reliability of witnesses, alleged contradictions in their statements, and the probative value of prosecution evidence are matters to be tested during trial after full-fledged cross-examination, placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Sai Darshan: 2025 INSC 979.

On the stage of trial, the Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s observation in X v. State of Rajasthan: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, that ordinarily in offences such as rape, murder, and dacoity, once the trial commences and the prosecution begins examining witnesses, courts should be loath to entertain bail applications of the accused.

Finding no ground for grant of bail in view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material on record, and the stage of trial, the Court dismissed the bail application.

Case Details

• Case Title: Mohd Mubarak v. State (NCT of Delhi)
• Case Number: Bail Application No. 4956/2025
• Court: High Court of Delhi
• Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
• Date of Order: 29.04.2026

Appearances: 

• For the Applicant: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Mr. Narender, and Mr. Raju Thakur, Advocates
• For the State: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

[Read Order]