"Media Outcry No Shield": Delhi HC Denies Bail to Man Accused in Minor Cousin’s Rape-Murder

The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to a man accused of raping and murdering his 8-year-old cousin, observing that mere public outcry and media coverage do not diminish the gravity of the offence.

Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the accused’s claim that he was falsely implicated due to media pressure and public outcry.

The court said, “At the stage of bail, the Court cannot minutely examine the evidence on record. The broad picture recorded above shows the gruesome manner in which an eight-year-old girl was raped and killed, that too by her own cousin. Merely because there was public outcry and media coverage of the incident, the gravity of the offence does not diminish.”

These observations were made by the court while dealing with a plea filed by the accused seeking bail in an FIR registered under Section 302, 363, 201 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

According to the prosecution, a labourer named Shri Dharshan Singh reported that his eight-year-old daughter, who was playing outside the house around 5:30 PM, did not return home, and despite efforts, they could not locate her. It appeared she had been kidnapped by someone.

During the investigation, one Sunil informed the police that he had seen the minor with her cousin near the gate of a stadium at about 7:00 PM on the same day. The Investigating Officer interrogated the accused, but he denied his involvement.

On April 7, 2016, it was recorded that the dead body of a girl child had been discovered behind the cremation ground of Kali Basti, Uttam Nagar. The dead body was identified by the child’s father. Forensic analysis revealed the presence of the accused’s DNA on the child’s clothes, her vaginal swab, and on his own clothing.

The accused allegedly raped and strangled the child, concealed the body in a plastic bag, and later returned to move it to a pit. He had absconded after the incident and was subsequently arrested.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the accused argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to public pressure and the glare of a media trial. It was also submitted that the accused has been in jail for approximately 9 years and 4 months and cannot be confined indefinitely.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appearing for the state contended that there was no delay in the trial. Despite the COVID-19 lockdown and repeated transfers of the case, four out of 20 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, all of whom have supported the prosecution. It was further argued that the case is supported by DNA evidence.

Weighing the submissions of both sides, the court said that prolonged incarceration is certainly a ground to release the accused on bail. However, that alone, the court noted, cannot be the sole ground.

It added that it has to keep in mind various judicially sanctified parameters, including the nature and gravity of the alleged crime and the material on record to support the same.

“The offence under Section 6 POCSO Act is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. The provision under Section 6 POCSO Act not just fixes the minimum punishment as rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, but further stipulates that life imprisonment shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict. Of course, the other offence being under Section 302 IPC is punishable with death as well,” the court said.

The high court said that it was not just the grave allegations against the accused but also the fact that a relationship of trust between the cousins was exploited by the accused.

Having observed the above, the bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Pradeep @ Piddi vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Date: August 1, 2025

Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia