Supreme Court protects man who assaulted woman on Delhi flyover

The Supreme Court had in December 2025 protected Virender Singh Bidhuri from getting arrested in a case connected with FIR No. 386/2025 registered at Police Station Badarpur under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and (w-ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [SC/ST Act].

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma issued notice while ordered that the counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks. "In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested, subject to the condition that he shall continuously co-operate with the investigation," the order adds.

Biduri approached the Supreme Court against an order of the Delhi High Court whereby it had dismissed his petition seeking anticipatory bail.

As per allegation in the FIR, the complainant had been working as Assistant Manager, Batra Hospital, Faridabad for the past two months. There, she came in contact with Biduri. On 30.07.2025, while returning from Batra Hospital, she was stopped by Biduri. On reaching Badarpur Flyover, he overtook and stopped her car. The complainant became frightened as Biduri allegedly broke the car window, forcefully pulled her out of the vehicle, physically assaulted her, molested her and verbally abused her. She further alleged that Biduri used caste related derogatory remarks "Chamaran tune aaj meri shikayat karke acha nahi kiya, aaj tujhe iska bhugtan karna padega" and threatened her not to report the incident to the police.

During assault, she fell down on the road and Biduri allegedly dragged her by her collar, molested her by pressing her breast and continued to abuse her before fleeing from the scene.

The Complainant had also produced a pen-drive containing video of the place of incident, recorded by her in her mobile phone. Further, she produced the caste certificates of her husband and her father along with her marriage card and the copy of the marriage certificate. As per the caste certificate, the husband of the complainant belongs to ‘Jatav’ caste and the father of the complainant belongs to ‘Khatik’ caste.

In its judgment the high Court had recorded that the alleged incident took place on the road on a flyover which could be viewed by anybody. It further noted that in her statement under Section 183 BNS, complainant stated that there were many public persons present, even though, no public witness could be traced out so far, the place of incident was indeed a “place within public view”. It said that therefore, the ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, based on the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 183 BNS, stood satisfied.

The High Court had also noted that the alleged incident took place on the road on a flyover which could be viewed by anybody. "In her statement under Section 183 BNS, complainant stated that there were many public persons present, even though, no public witness could be traced out so far, the place of incident was indeed a “place within public view”. Therefore, the ingredients necessary to prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, 1989, based on the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 183 BNS, stand satisfied. Hence, prima facie, an offence under SC/ST Act is made out from the bare reading of the FIR and the statement under Section 183 BNS, and therefore, the bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act shall apply in the present case against the grant of anticipatory bail," the High Court had further said.

Case Title: VIRENDRA SINGH BIDURI vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Bench: Justices Sundresh and Sharma

Order Date: December 3, 2025