Bail Denied in Aggravated POCSO Case Despite Medical Inconsistencies Due to Risk of Witness Intimidation

The applicant, a 71-year-old man, was arrested on April 30, 2025, following an FIR alleging the rape of a minor victim on April 12, 2025, inside a garage.

The applicant was charged under Sections 65(1) and 351(1) of the B.N.S., Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, and various sections of the SC/ST Act.

The defense argued that there was an 18-day delay in the FIR, no medical or DNA evidence supporting rape, and that CCTV footage refuted the presence of a vehicle at the scene.

The State opposed the bail, citing medical reports of injuries to the victim's neck and anal region, the victim’s psychological distress, and the risk of witness intimidation given the applicant's superior socio-economic status.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. considering the gravity of the offences and the current stage of the trial.

2. Whether the potential for witness intimidation and the socio-economic disparity between the parties warrants the denial of bail to ensure a fair trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.) regarding the discretionary power to grant bail in heinous offences.

It relied on Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, establishing that a "fair trial" encompasses justice for the victim and society, not just the accused.

Following State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, the court emphasized considering the gravity of accusations and the possibility of tampering with evidence.

Additionally, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar was cited to reinforce that bail must be exercised judiciously based on a prima facie case and the potential prejudice to the trial.

The Court observed that at the stage of bail, it is not required to conduct a "mini-trial" by examining minor contradictions or the detailed strength of evidence, but rather to determine if a prima facie case exists.

Despite the defense's arguments regarding medical inconsistencies and CCTV footage, the Court found that the victim's consistent statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., coupled with the medical report noting physical injuries, established sufficient grounds for detention.

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the trial had already commenced with two witnesses examined, making it an "advanced stage" where the risk of the applicant—who is financially well-off—influencing a vulnerable victim from a weaker background was high.

However, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within three months, mandating day-to-day hearings in accordance with the spirit of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. to ensure the right to a speedy trial.