Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Killing S*x Worker Through ‘Aggressive S*x’
The Delhi High Court granted bail to a man accused of a s*x worker's death, citing a lack of forensic proof. Justice Girish Kathpalia ruled that a thumb bite mark didn't prove he, and not his three associates, was responsible. With no direct witnesses and other suspects already on bail, the court applied the principle of parity.
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused of causing the death of a s*x worker during an alleged act of aggressive physical intimacy (aggressive s*x). In a ruling delivered recently, Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the evidence presented - specifically a bite mark on the accused's thumb - was insufficient to prove that he, rather than his three associates, was responsible for the fatal injuries. The court noted that the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and failed to establish a definitive link between the specific individual and the woman's death.
Lack of Forensic and Direct Evidence
The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with three others, had engaged the woman’s services before he purportedly strangled her to death during the act. The group was then accused of dumping her body. However, the court highlighted a significant gap in forensic findings. P*rn Video Played Twice During Delhi High Court’s Online Hearings.
Justice Kathpalia pointed out that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated no s*xual activity was detected upon examination of the deceased's body. Furthermore, there were no eyewitnesses who had seen the victim alive with any of the four accused persons before her death. Regarding the bite mark cited by investigators, the judge stated, "Merely because her bite mark was on his thumb, it could not be said that it was he, and not two associates, who carried out the aggressive act which turned out to be fatal".
The Question of Individual Responsibility
A central point of the court's decision was the inability of the prosecution to pinpoint which of the four individuals present at the scene committed the act. Justice Kathpalia emphasised that even if the prosecution's theory was accepted, liability could not be assigned to one specific person without clearer proof. "In other words, even if the prosecution’s version is assumed to be correct to the effect that the accused persons engaged the services of the deceased for s*x and one of them carried out aggressive s*x, which turned fatal for the deceased, it cannot be said as to which of the four accused persons was responsible for that,” the judge noted. S*xual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act Is a Complete Code, Parallel Committees Impermissible, Says Delhi High Court.
Parity with Co-Accused
In granting the bail application, the High Court also applied the principle of parity. The court observed that the other three co-accused in the matter had already been released on bail. Given the lack of direct evidence and the fact that his associates were no longer in custody, the judge concluded there was no justifiable reason to continue the detention of the present accused as the trial proceeds. The identity of the accused and the victim remains withheld due to the sensitive nature of the ongoing legal proceedings.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on May 06, 2026 02:36 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
