Bail denied for aggravated penetrative sexual assault where victim's statement and medical history corroborate pregnancy.

The Applicant, Shyam Singh @ Kala, sought regular bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 2025 involving charges of aggravated penetrative sexual assault

The Applicant alleged false implication stemming from a property dispute regarding agricultural land and crop sharing

He further contended there was a one-year delay in lodging the FIR (incident in 2024; FIR on 18.05.2025) and claimed contradictions existed between the medical officer's statement—noting the victim was menstruating during examination—and the victim's allegation of pregnancy

Conversely, the victim recorded a statement alleging she was raped, threatened, became pregnant, and subsequently underwent an abortion

Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the gravity of the allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act

Whether the discrepancies in medical reports and the alleged land dispute provide sufficient grounds to outweigh the victim's testimony and medical history

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), governing the grant of regular bail

The substantive offenses considered were Sections 64 (2) (m), 89, and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 3(a), 4(ii), 5(j)(ii), 5(1), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

The Court also relied on the procedural evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 180 (statement to police/medical) and Section 183 (statement before Magistrate) of the BNSS

The Court examined the competing narratives of the parties, weighing the Applicant's claim of a "frivolous case" against the specific evidence presented by the prosecution.

Although the Applicant pointed to a delay in the FIR and argued that the victim's menstrual cycle during the medical exam contradicted the pregnancy claim, the Court relied on the victim's categorical statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, where she detailed the assault, the resulting pregnancy, and the abortion

The Court emphasized the medico-legal history which corroborated multiple penetrative assaults and noted that the Applicant had allegedly attempted to give the victim abortion pills

The Court reasoned that the severity of the "aggravating penetrative assault" and the risk the Applicant posed to the victim and witnesses necessitated the denial of bail

It held that the overall facts, particularly the corroborated medical history and the victim's judicial statement, militated against the grant of relief

The bail application was out rightly rejected