The Delhi High Court has directed the city police to strictly ensure that the name, parentage, or address of survivors of sexual assault is not disclosed in any document or report filed before courts.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asked the Commissioner of Delhi Police to issue clear instructions to all Station House Officers (SHOs) and investigating officers to comply with the law protecting the identity of survivors of sexual offences. The court expressed concern after noting that the investigating officer had mentioned the name of the prosecutrix in a status report filed in a POCSO case.

While rejecting the bail plea of the accused, the court ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) of the concerned area to sensitise all SHOs under his jurisdiction to prevent such disclosures. It further requested the Police Commissioner to reiterate the instructions across the force and directed that a copy of the order be forwarded for compliance.

The case relates to allegations that the accused sexually assaulted a minor girl, aged around 12–13 years, in 2021 after taking her away from her home on a false pretext. It was alleged that the accused confined the child in a room and repeatedly subjected her to sexual assault before she was traced and rescued by her family.

The accused claimed that he was falsely implicated due to a consensual relationship with the survivor’s mother and argued that the alleged offence was unlikely to have occurred during the COVID-19 lockdown, when public movement was restricted.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the mere fact that the incident occurred during the pandemic could not be a ground to disbelieve the survivor’s version. The court noted that the prosecutrix had consistently supported the prosecution’s case and had clearly narrated the incident in her statement to the police, which deserved due weight.

The court also ruled that the alleged relationship between the accused and the survivor’s mother, or claims that the mother visited the accused in jail or accepted money from him, did not dilute the seriousness of the offence at this stage.

Observing that the accused was someone the child trusted and addressed as “chacha,” the court said the conduct of the survivor’s mother, even if assumed to be true, could not be a basis to doubt the testimony of a minor victim.

“The offence complained of is against a child, and its gravity cannot be assessed through the conduct of a third party,” the court said, while dismissing the bail application