Bail denied in grave POCSO offence involving breach of trust with a child victim.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 818/2025, registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, for offences under Sections 74, 75, 76 and 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a neighbour of the ten-year-old prosecutrix, administered an intoxicant to her in a toffee and sexually assaulted her after the other children had left his house.

The child disclosed the incident to her parents on 26 November 2025, underwent medical examination, and the FIR was registered on 27 November 2025.

The petitioner relied on the absence of injuries in the medical examination, alleged inconsistencies between the MLC and FIR regarding the timeline, CCTV footage, and the presence of his family members in the house.

His earlier bail application had been withdrawn on 25 August 2026; he claimed that the examination of the prosecutrix’s mother during trial constituted a change in circumstances.

The prosecutrix and her mother had fully supported the prosecution case.

1. Whether, in view of the allegations of aggravated sexual assault against a ten-year-old child and the supporting testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother, the petitioner should be released on regular bail.

2. Whether the alleged absence of injuries, discrepancies concerning the timeline, CCTV footage, and the petitioner’s family circumstances constituted sufficient changed circumstances to warrant bail after withdrawal of the earlier bail application.

The Court applied the provisions invoked in the FIR—Sections 74, 75, 76 and 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the gravity and statutory punishment of the alleged offence, which could extend to life imprisonment or death, as well as the nature of the relationship of trust between the accused and the child victim.

The Court also recognised that the bail determination at this stage is not a final adjudication on the merits and that the trial court must independently assess the evidence.

The Court found that the prosecutrix and her mother had fully supported the prosecution case.

Although the petitioner relied on the absence of injuries, alleged timeline inconsistencies, CCTV footage, and his family’s presence, these contentions did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations or the consistent supporting evidence at the bail stage.

The Court gave particular weight to the alleged breach of the relationship of trust between the petitioner and the child victim and to the severe punishment prescribed for the alleged offence.

It therefore concluded that the examination of the prosecutrix’s mother after withdrawal of the earlier bail application did not justify release on bail.

The bail application, along with the accompanying applications, was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and that the trial court would independently decide the case on the evidence adduced at trial.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for communication to the petitioner.