Delhi HC Cancels Bail of School Caretaker Accused of Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on Three-Year-Old

Justice Vinod Kumar set aside a Sessions Court bail order, holding that a three-year-old victim's identification of the accused and the place of offence could not be dismissed at the investigation stage.

The High Court of Delhi has cancelled the regular bail granted to Lalit Kumar, a caretaker and Upper Division Clerk at a junior school in Janak Puri, Delhi, who is accused of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old girl enrolled in the school's nursery class. Justice Vinod Kumar, sitting as Vacation Judge, set aside the order dated 7 May 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (SC-POCSO), South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. The court found that the Sessions Judge had overlooked the victim's consistent identification of the accused and the place of occurrence, the limited pool of male staff at the school, and the early stage of investigation when bail was granted — just one week after the FIR was registered and while forensic reports were still awaited.

The Incident and Registration of FIR

On 30 April 2026, the minor victim attended school for only the second time. Her mother dropped her at the school gate at around 8:00 AM, requesting a teacher to send the child home early as she was unwell. At about 4:00 PM that day, after returning from school and waking from sleep, the child began crying and pointed to her private part, complaining of severe pain. She told her mother that a bada sa ladka at school had taken her downstairs and touched his finger in her private part, causing pain and bleeding.

The mother informed the police by calling Emergency Number 112 on the intervening night of 30 April and 1 May 2026. FIR No. 104/2026 was registered at Police Station Janak Puri on 1 May 2026 at 8:15 AM under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The junior school had approximately 34 students and 10 staff members: six female teachers, two female maids, one guard named Gopal, and Lalit Kumar. He and Gopal were the only two male persons posted in the junior wing.

On 1 May 2026 at 6:30 PM, in the presence of her parents at Police Station Janak Puri, the minor victim identified Lalit Kumar as the person who had taken her to the basement and touched her private part. On 5 May 2026, she also identified her class teacher Kriti Sahni as the person who had taken her to the basement and cleaned the blood stains.

Investigation Circumstances the Sessions Court Weighed

When police contacted Lalit Kumar on 1 May 2026 at 11:00 AM to inspect the school premises and CCTV cameras, he did not cooperate and delayed the process for approximately three to four hours before being brought to the police station at 5:00 PM. He was arrested at 8:40 PM that day.

The victim's statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was recorded before the Duty JMFC on 2 May 2026. The scene of crime — the basement area of the junior wing — was inspected on 2 May 2026 with the minor victim, who independently identified the room. The crime team lifted forensic exhibits including blood-stained tissue paper and a cut piece of bed sheet, both sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL reports were still awaited at the time the Sessions Court granted bail.

Of approximately 64 CCTV cameras installed in the school premises, all were found non-functional at the relevant time. The DVR of the CCTV system was seized for forensic examination. One portable camera at the school reception was operational. Its footage showed Lalit Kumar moving towards the school gallery or passage — the area through which children enter — at about 8:13 to 8:15 AM on 30 April 2026, and returning from the same passage at about 8:37 AM.

Why the Sessions Court Granted Bail

The Additional Sessions Judge granted regular bail on 7 May 2026, just one week after the FIR was registered. The Sessions Court rested its decision on several factors: the CCTV footage showed Lalit Kumar leaving the junior wing at around 8:37 AM and not returning; separate footage showed him entering the senior wing building shortly thereafter; the Medical Legal Certificate prepared at DDU Hospital recorded no injury, redness, or marks on the body of the child, including her private parts; Lalit Kumar had joined the investigation whenever called; there was nothing to suggest he had attempted to flee or interfere; the DVR and other articles had already been seized; and the teachers of the junior wing had already been examined. The Sessions Court concluded that no sufficient grounds existed for continued detention.

Rival Contentions Before the High Court

The State, represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. S.V. Raju, challenged the bail order under Section 528 of the BNSS in CRL.M.C. 3956/2026. The victim's mother, who had lodged the FIR, filed a separate petition in CRL.M.C. 3966/2026. Both petitions were decided by a common judgment.

The ASG argued that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations — aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old child under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It was contended that the CCTV footage actually placed the respondent inside the junior wing during the relevant period; that the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS consistently identified him; and that the Sessions Court had selectively read the footage while ignoring other incriminating circumstances. The ASG also pointed to the premature stage of the proceedings, with the FSL report and DVR examination still pending, and to Lalit Kumar's three-decade association with the school, which gave him influence over staff who were material witnesses. Reliance was placed on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, and on the Delhi High Court's decision in Ms. N v. State & Anr., NC:2023:DHC:6253.

Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, appearing for Lalit Kumar, denied all allegations and claimed false implication. He submitted that the respondent was about 56 years of age with over 30 years of unblemished service and no criminal antecedents. His duties were purely administrative — overseeing entry and exit, maintaining records, and office work — with no teaching responsibilities and no role in supervising children in classrooms or the basement. Counsel relied on the CCTV footage showing the respondent exiting the junior wing at 8:37 AM and entering the senior wing at approximately 8:43 AM, where he remained until afternoon. The defence also pointed to the MLC findings showing no fresh injuries, and relied on Dharmander Singh @ Saheb v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267, for the proposition that a court is not required to form an opinion on the merits of evidence when considering bail even before framing of charge.

How the High Court Reasoned

Justice Vinod Kumar identified two critical facts that the Sessions Court had missed entirely.

The first was the composition of the junior school's staff. With only two male persons in the junior wing — the guard Gopal and Lalit Kumar — the court held that the child victim could not have made any mistake in identifying the culprit. The Sessions Court had not adverted to this at all.

The second was the age of the victim. The court held that a three-year-old child cannot be equated with an adult victim who can narrate facts in proper sequence with accuracy of time. A child of such tender age may appear incoherent or even illogical, but that does not mean what the child says is incorrect. The victim had narrated the incident to her mother without naming the respondent, and had thereafter independently identified both the respondent and the place of occurrence. The court held that this evidence could not be rejected at the bail stage simply because the respondent was seen leaving the premises at 8:37 AM.

The court also addressed specific defence arguments. On the MLC, the court noted that the time recorded in the medical report — 3:00 PM on 30 April 2026 — appeared to be the time the child informed her mother of the incident, not the time of the incident itself. On the argument that the alleged act could not have occurred in the presence of a lady teacher, the court reiterated that a three-year-old may not narrate events in sequence, and that the investigating officer would investigate those facts in due course. On the tissue paper yielding nothing on examination, the court held that this did not strike off the version of the victim and her mother.

The court observed that bail had been granted at a premature stage when the investigation was in full swing — only a week after the FIR, with FSL reports and DVR examination still pending. The Sessions Court had, in effect, conducted a selective appreciation of evidence without taking into account the totality of circumstances.

The court distinguished the respondent's cited precedent, Dharmander Singh @ Saheb, on the facts: in that case the prosecutrix was mature, had a friendship with the accused, and bail was granted after investigation was complete and the prosecutrix's evidence was being recorded. None of those conditions applied here.

Justice Vinod Kumar relied on X v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 43, where the Supreme Court had set aside a bail order in a POCSO case on the ground that the High Court had failed to account for the nature and gravity of the offence, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, and the vulnerability of the victim — even where the medico-legal examination had revealed no injuries on the minor victim's body.

The court stated that while a higher court should not ordinarily interfere with a bail order, interference is justified where the trial court has missed extremely important factors in an offence of grave nature — as had happened here.

Order

Justice Vinod Kumar set aside the impugned order dated 7 May 2026 in exercise of power under Section 528 of the BNSS. Lalit Kumar was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Court) on 1 July 2026 at 2:00 PM. Both petitions — CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 filed by the State and CRL.M.C. 3966/2026 filed by the victim's mother — were allowed. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.