Bail Granted Where Victim and Complainant Resile and Turn Hostile During Trial in POCSO Proceedings

The applicant sought first bail in Case Crime No. 387 of 2025 involving alleged sexual acts with a 17-year-old victim, discovered via a viral WhatsApp video

The FIR was filed by the victim’s mother based on village rumours

During investigation, the victim initially supported the case under Section 180 B.N.S.S. but later resiled in her Section 183 B.N.S.S. statement, claiming she was not the girl in the video

At trial, both the complainant (mother) and the victim were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively, where both turned hostile and denied the allegations

The applicant had been in judicial custody since November 1, 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the primary prosecution witnesses (the victim and complainant) have turned hostile during the trial.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is justified when the possibility of tampering with evidence is diminished.

Section 64 (Rape) and Section 65(1) (Punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), alongside Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act

Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding statements before a Magistrate

The settled constitutional principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception"

The court reasoned that while the charges are serious, the evidentiary foundation had significantly weakened because the "star witnesses"—the victim and the complainant—failed to support the prosecution’s version in court

Specifically, the victim’s categorical denial of her presence in the video and her assertion that the FIR was based on village misconceptions created a lack of incriminating evidence

Since these material witnesses had already been examined, the court found the risk of the applicant influencing evidence or tampering with the prosecution’s case to be "substantially diminished"

The court noted the applicant's period of incarceration since November 2025 and the fact that the trial would lead to further delays

The application was allowed, and the court ordered the release of the applicant (Farman) on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court