Bail Denied in Aggravated POCSO Case Involving Sexual Assault and Alleged Victim Poisoning

The Applicant, Azad Miya, filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 191 of 2025.

It is alleged that on 16.09.2025, the Applicant kidnapped the 13-year-old daughter of the informant.

Upon her return the following day, the Applicant allegedly administered a poisonous substance to her, leading to her hospitalization.

The Applicant was arrested on 28.09.2025 and has been in judicial custody since.

The prosecution submitted a charge-sheet following the investigation, and the trial is currently in progress.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering the gravity of the offences and the age of the victim?

The Court considered Sections 64 (punishment for rape), 137(1)(b), and 137(2) (kidnapping/abduction) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3/4 (penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The Court also referenced Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the recording of statements during investigation.

The primary legal principle applied is the judicial discretion in granting bail, which necessitates balancing the nature and gravity of the accusations, the severity of potential punishment, and the risk of influencing witnesses.

The Court analyzed the gravity of the allegations, noting that the victim was a minor (born 17.10.2012) according to school records and the Principal's statement.

It found that the accusations involved not only sexual assault but also the administration of poison, which significantly enhanced the seriousness of the case.

The Court rejected the Applicant's arguments regarding the improbability of the incident occurring near a residential area and alleged contradictions in the prosecution's story, holding that such matters pertain to the appreciation of evidence and are reserved for the trial stage.

Furthermore, the Court observed that since the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial was underway, releasing the Applicant could lead to the influencing of prosecution witnesses.

The Court held that given the nature of the accusations and the possibility of witness tampering, it was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favor of the Applicant.

It clarified that these observations are limited to the bail adjudication and shall not affect the trial on merits.