The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 1 July 2025, declined to grant interim bail to a man facing trial for rape and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, but directed jail authorities to escort him under custody to his examination centre so he can appear in an Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) exam on 8 July. The ruling by a single-judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia attempts to balance the accused's right to education against the prosecution's concerns about flight risk.

Background of the Case

The accused is facing trial in connection with an FIR registered at Uttam Nagar police station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly committed penetrative sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl who used to visit him for tuition classes. The trial is reportedly at an advanced stage, with the Investigating Officer having already been partly cross-examined.

What the Court Ordered

Justice Kathpalia directed that on 8 July, between 10 am and 7 pm, the accused be taken under custody to the examination centre — not released on bail. The court also directed the accused to furnish a copy of his IGNOU hall ticket or admit card to the concerned Jail Superintendent at the earliest to ensure compliance. The order was further directed to be communicated to the Jail Superintendent concerned.

The court clarified: 'It is made clear that none of the above observations shall be read to the prejudice of defence of the accused/applicant during trial,' Justice Kathpalia noted in the order.

Why Interim Bail Was Denied

Counsel for the accused had sought interim bail specifically to appear in the 8 July examination, submitting that he had previously been granted interim bail for similar purposes and that the exam was important for his career. However, the prosecution strongly opposed the plea, arguing that forensic evidence — including DNA profiling — was against the accused, and expressing apprehension that he could abscond if released. The prosecution also questioned why the accused had not approached authorities for allotment of an examination centre inside the jail itself.

The Legal Balancing Act

'Considering the overall circumstances and balancing the rival rights,' Justice Kathpalia opted for the middle path: custody escort rather than bail. This approach allows the accused to exercise his right to education without compromising the integrity of the ongoing trial. Notably, courts in India have previously grappled with similar requests, and the custody-escort mechanism has emerged as a recognised judicial tool to balance competing rights in such cases. The decision underscores that the right to pursue education does not automatically translate into a right to temporary liberty, particularly where prosecution evidence is described as substantial.

What Happens Next

The accused must submit his IGNOU hall ticket to the Jail Superintendent before 8 July. The trial proceedings — including the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer — are expected to continue thereafter. The court's observations are explicitly ring-fenced from influencing the trial outcome.