Bail denied to POCSO accused pending examination of material prosecution witnesses.

The petitioners were accused in a charge sheet arising from allegations that they provided accommodation in their residential houses to the principal accused, Zahoor Ahmad Rather, for sexually exploiting a minor victim, allegedly in exchange for ₹2,000 and ₹1,000 respectively.

The proceedings before the Fast Track Court for POCSO Cases, Srinagar, involved offences under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioners had been in custody since May 2025, and their earlier bail applications had been rejected on 3 October 2025; their subsequent applications were rejected by a common order dated 10 February 2026.

The victim had been examined and had neither turned hostile nor exonerated the petitioners, while several other witnesses, including the Executive Magistrate who conducted the TIP, remained to be examined.

The Court applied the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 read with Sections 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, along with the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as reflected in the charge framed against the petitioners.

The Court reiterated the established bail principle that, while considering an application for bail, the court should not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or return findings on the merits of the prosecution case. This principle was drawn from Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, AIR 2005 SC 42.

The Court held that the petitioners’ submissions concerning the absence of implication in earlier statements, alleged inconsistencies, vagueness regarding the date and time of occurrence, and the evidentiary significance of the principal accused’s statement substantially concerned the merits of the prosecution case.

Those matters could not be conclusively assessed at the bail stage in view of the rule against detailed appreciation of evidence.

Although the victim had already been examined, she had not turned hostile or exonerated the petitioners; moreover, the Executive Magistrate associated with the TIP, during which the victim allegedly identified the petitioners, was yet to be examined.

Given the seriousness of the allegations that the petitioners made their residential premises available for the sexual exploitation of a minor in return for money, and considering that other material witnesses remained to be examined, the Court found that the petitioners did not deserve bail at that stage.

It granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court with fresh bail applications after the material witnesses relevant to their alleged role, among the 41 prosecution witnesses, had been examined.

The Court directed that any such future applications be considered in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations in the present order, clarifying that it had not recorded any finding on the merits of the case.