FIR registered in 2025 for rape allegations spanning 2019-2022: Delhi High Court grants anticipatory bail to accused

Noting that the FIR in the instant case was registered in November 2025 for rape allegations spanning from 2019 to 2022, the Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to an accused before it.

The case of the prosecution was that in June 2019, the victim/complainant went to reside at her maternal aunt’s house in Mumbai for pursuing her studies wherein during her stay, the accused had forcibly established physical relations with her, when other family members were not present. It was further alleged that the accused had intimidated the victim into silence by threats of consequences, including disclosure to family and disruption of her education, and that the victim was thereafter repeatedly subjected to sexual assault till 2020. A further allegation was that in 2022, when the accused came to Delhi, he again threatened the victim and forcibly established physical relations without her consent.

The FIR came to be registered on 25th November, 2025. Court was further informed that the accused-applicant had not yet joined investigation.

The accused’s earlier request for pre-arrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 9th December, 2025, with observations that the allegations were serious and that Section 482(4) BNSS excludes an application of pre arrest bail where the accusation concerns offences under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Sanjeev Narula's bench was told that the FIR, registered on 25th November, 2025, relate to allegations said to have commenced in June 2019 and to have resurfaced in 2022, and that the interregnum is left largely unexplained. It was urged that the victim admittedly returned to Delhi in 2022 and thereafter continued to remain within a secure familial setting, with access to close relatives, and there is nothing on record to indicate any contemporaneous complaint, disclosure, or precipitating event in relation to the accused proximate to the registration of the FIR.

State opposed the application and submitted that the material collected during investigation established that the victim was a minor at the relevant time. It was contended that as per the birth certificate on record, her date of birth was 13th June, 2003, and consequently she was below 16 years of age when the accused first established physical relations with her.

High Court noted that Section 482(4) BNSS contains a specific statutory exclusion, where the arrest is on accusation of having committed an offence under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of BNS. It thus said whether the present accusation falls within that exclusion cannot be decided on assumption. It turns, in the present case, on age verification and on the precise attribution of allegations to particular periods, high court said.

Evident inconsistency in the age documents being relied upon was also noted. "One set of documents is stated to be the first attendant school records, indicating the date of birth as 8th May, 2002. Another document is stated to be the victim’s birth certificate, indicating her date of birth as 13th June, 2003. On either version, the first allegation is stated to be in June 2019, continuing till 2020 and then an occurrence in 2022. At this stage, the Court is not recording any final view on age. The investigating agency will have to place a clear, verified position on record. The Court is also mindful that allegations under Section 376 IPC are grave. Delay in reporting, by itself, is not decisive in such matters. At the same time, for the limited purpose of interim protection, the Court cannot ignore that the FIR is registered in November 2025 for allegations spanning 2019 to 2022, and that the Applicant asserts a case of disputed age and disputed factual premises, which require verification," the bench said.

Accordingly, the bench directed that interim protection be granted to the accused while asking him to appear before the Investigating Officer on 20th December, 2025 at 4:00 PM and join and cooperate in investigation thereafter, as and when required.

Court further clarified that in case the accused failed to join investigation on the date fixed, or was found to be non-cooperative thereafter, the State was at liberty to seek appropriate orders, including recall of interim protection, on the basis of a report.

Senior Advocate Samrat Nigam along with Advocates Manish Choudhary and Riju Mani Talukdar appeared for the applicant. APP Hemant Mehla appeared for the State.

Case Title: SANDEEP UPADHYAY vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI