Bail granted where material inconsistencies in victim's testimony regarding locus and identification create prima facie doubt.

The applicant, Vikas Verma, sought bail after being in judicial custody since September 18, 2025, for alleged offenses under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant sexually assaulted a 12-year-old minor during a wedding ceremony on June 17, 2025, resulting in her pregnancy.

In her initial statements to the police and the Investigating Officer, the victim stated she could not identify the assailant because the room was dark and the lights were off.

However, the victim’s mother claimed the incident occurred in a cowshed (Chaani), and the victim later identified the applicant by name, face, and voice in her statement under Section 183 BNS.

1. Whether the material inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence and the identification of the accused warrant the grant of bail to the applicant.

2. Whether the victim's testimony, in light of contradictions between her initial and subsequent statements, inspires sufficient prima facie confidence to justify continued pretrial detention.

Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (punishment for rape of a woman under 16) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

The court primarily applied the established principle that while the testimony of a minor prosecutrix carries significant weight and can form the basis of a conviction, for the purposes of bail, such statements must be consistent, credible, and inspire prima facie confidence.

The court further observed that any deprivation of personal liberty must be justified by a credible and consistent prima facie case.

The Court noted significant discrepancies between the FIR and subsequent statements regarding the situs of the crime; the FIR named a cowshed (Chaani), whereas statements under Sections 181 and 183 BNSS cited a marriage house.

This divergence was deemed a material discrepancy rather than a trivial one, as it created uncertainty regarding the circumstances of the incident.

The Court found a "material contradiction" in the identification of the assailant.

The victim initially asserted an absolute inability to recognize the perpetrator due to darkness, yet later claimed to recognize the applicant’s face and voice.

The Court held that this unexplained transition from non-identification to categorical assertion raised reasonable doubt regarding the applicant's role, especially since no independent material placed him at the scene.

While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations involving a minor, the Court concluded that the applicant had established a case for bail based on the lack of a consistent prima facie version.

Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail.