New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has issued a strong directive to the Delhi Police, emphasizing the absolute necessity of maintaining the anonymity of sexual assault victims in court documents. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the names, addresses, or parentage of survivors are never disclosed in status reports or official filings.

The Court’s directions came while dismissing a regular bail application filed by an accused, Vicky Kashyap, facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case dates back to September 24, 2021, when a PCR call was received at Moti Nagar Police Station regarding the molestation of a child. The victim, a 12-year-old girl, alleged that the accused, Vicky Kashyap, had taken her to a room on the pretext of talking and subsequently committed sexual assault.

The incident came to light when the girl's mother, searching for her daughter, reached the accused’s house and found the child confined in a washroom. Following a medical examination and counselling, an FIR was registered under Section 376AB (rape of a girl under 12) of the IPC and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.

Seeking regular bail, the counsel for the applicant argued that Kashyap had been in judicial custody since September 2021. The defense raised several points to cast doubt on the prosecution’s story:

Delay in FIR: It was argued that there was an unexplained delay of several hours in making the PCR call.
Inconclusive Evidence: The defense claimed that the medical report (MLC) showed no injuries and the FSL report was silent regarding male DNA.
False Implication Theory: The counsel alleged that the victim’s mother was in a "consensual physical relationship" with the accused and that the victim resented this, leading to a false case.
Pandemic Restrictions: It was further argued that since the incident occurred during the Covid-19 period when movement was restricted, the prosecution's version was unlikely.

Justice Sharma, after hearing both sides, rejected the arguments for bail. The Court noted that the victim was of a very "tender age" (12-13 years) at the time of the incident and had remained consistent in her statements before the Police, the Magistrate (Section 164 CrPC), and the Trial Court.

Regarding the defense's claim about the mother's relationship with the accused, the Court remarked:

"Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the mother of the victim had a consensual relationship with the accused, the same cannot lead to an inference that the applicant could not have committed sexual assault upon the minor child."

The Court emphasized that the accused occupied a "position of trust." The victim used to address him as "Chacha" (uncle), a relationship akin to a father figure. The Court held that the gravity of the offense against a child cannot be assessed through the conduct of a third party (the mother).

Strict Directions to Delhi Police on Victim Privacy

While perusing the case file, the Court noticed a serious procedural lapse: the Investigating Officer (IO) had mentioned the victim's name in the status report filed before the High Court.

Taking a serious view of this violation of privacy laws and Supreme Court mandates, the High Court issued the following directions:

Sensitization of Officers: The DCP of the concerned area must sensitize all Station House Officers (SHOs) to ensure that the name, parentage, or address of a sexual assault victim is never disclosed in any status report or document filed in court.
Commissioner’s Oversight: The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, is requested to reiterate these instructions to all SHOs and Investigating Officers across the city.
Strict Compliance: The Court demanded strict compliance with the law regarding the protection of a victim's identity to prevent further trauma or social stigma.

Finding no merit in the bail plea at this stage, the Court dismissed the application. However, it clarified that these observations are only for the purpose of deciding the bail and should not influence the final outcome of the trial.

Case Title: Vicky Kashyap v. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1329/2025
Date of Decision: January 14, 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma