Delhi Court Denies Bail in Rape Case as Survivor Asks Why Accused Remains Unarrested

Despite denial of anticipatory bail, accused remains at large; survivor seeks police accountability

New Delhi , 20th January , 2026 :

A press conference was held at the Constitution Club of India on Tuesday by a rape survivor and her legal counsel, after a Delhi sessions court rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail application in a case alleging rape on the false promise of marriage, sexual exploitation, and criminal intimidation, even as the police have not made any arrest so far.

During the press conference, the survivor highlighted the seriousness of the case and the injustice she has faced, and demanded accountability from the police.

The case arises from FIR No. 300/2025 registered at Vasant Vihar police station under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR names Sharat Vohra as the accused. The survivor’s identity has been withheld as mandated by law.

On January 14, 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler dismissed the accused’s anticipatory bail plea after examining the material on record. The court observed that the relationship between the parties was matrimonial in nature and that the survivor’s consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage.

The order also recorded allegations of attempts to influence the survivor and her family, supported by call detail records, and held that no exceptional grounds existed to grant protection from arrest. Despite this, the accused has not been taken into custody.

Case background

According to the FIR, the survivor first met the accused through a matrimonial arrangement years ago. They reconnected in mid-2025, when the accused allegedly represented himself as divorced and expressed willingness to marry her, while concealing material facts about his marital status.

The survivor has alleged that repeated sexual relations took place under assurances of imminent marriage. She has further alleged forced and unnatural sexual acts causing physical injury and severe mental trauma, some of which occurred when the accused was intoxicated.

The FIR and court order also note that the accused accompanied the survivor to IVF and medical clinics, projecting these visits as part of future post-marital planning. The court observed that such conduct reinforced the survivor’s belief that marriage was genuine and imminent.

When the survivor questioned inconsistencies regarding the accused’s marital status, the relationship allegedly deteriorated. The FIR records allegations of threats to her life and threats to circulate intimate photographs and videos, amounting to criminal intimidation and blackmail.

The FIR mentions members of the accused’s family — Praveer Kumar Vohra, Kiran Vohra, Nabasha Vohra, Sakshi Vohra, and Natasha Sehgal — as part of the factual background. No findings of guilt have been recorded against them.

Survivor alleges continued threats, questions non-arrest

Despite the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Sessions Court, the survivor has alleged that the accused has continued to threaten her repeatedly in one form or another, even after the court’s order. According to the survivor, no arrest has been effected for over 45 days, raising serious concerns regarding police inaction.

The survivor has stated that the continued non-arrest, despite the court’s observations and denial of protection from arrest, has emboldened the accused and placed her safety at risk. She has questioned why the directions and spirit of the court’s order have not translated into immediate custodial action by the Investigating Officer (I/O).

Following the bail rejection, the survivor has sought the immediate arrest of the accused, protection for herself and her family, and, if required, a change of Investigating Officer. During the bail hearing, the Investigating Officer stated that custodial interrogation was “not required,” a position the survivor has formally contested.

The survivor has expressed apprehension that continued non-arrest may allow the accused to abscond, influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or result in the filing of a chargesheet without arrest, thereby undermining the seriousness and gravity of the allegations.

Statements from legal counsel and civil society representatives

Advocate Asghar Khan, appearing for the complainant, stated: “We fought this case pro bono and we will continue to fight for justice. We stand firmly by the survivor, who is being threatened despite the directions of the Hon’ble Court. We will fight for the justice of the survivor in the interest of society.”

Anshumman Joshi, National President of Janhit Dal, also expressed support for the survivor, stating: “We will fight for the justice of the survivor until she gets justice. Society must take a stand—when a woman says no, it means no.”

Pramod Shankar Tiwari, President of Corruption Free India (NGO), stated that the organisation would extend full support to the survivor and continue to stand by her in her pursuit of justice.

The complainant is represented by Asghar Khan & Associates and Blackthorn Chambers. The legal team includes Sh. Asghar Khan, Sh. Najmi Khan, Sh. Abdul Tahir Khan, Ms. Sahar Masroor, and Mohd. Wasil Khan, learned counsels for the complainant, with the complainant appearing in person.