Consistency in Testimony of a Minor Victim Prevails Over Credibility Issues Regarding Co-Accused for Bail Consideration

The applicant sought regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 302 of 2023 involving allegations of sexual exploitation of the complainant’s minor daughter.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant developed a romantic relationship with the victim (aged 16 years and 4 months), took compromising videos, and used them to blackmail her into physical relations with himself and an associate, Ikrar @ Mirchi.

The F.I.R. was lodged on 26.07.2023, following a nine-day delay after the victim disclosed the incident.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, the F.I.R. was a result of prior enmity with the family, and that material contradictions existed regarding the co-accused.

The applicant has been in custody since 16.08.2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s statements regarding a co-accused and the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

2. Whether the prima facie evidence and the minor status of the victim warrant the continued incarceration of the applicant during the trial.

The Court primarily applied the provisions of Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

It further integrated the stringent standards of Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor.

The court also considered the procedural value of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the weight of testimony provided by a prosecutrix (P.W.-1) during trial.

The Court analyzed the consistency of the victim's testimony across different stages of the proceedings.

While the defense argued that the victim's denial of allegations against the co-accused Ikrar during cross-examination created a fatal contradiction, the Court held that such inconsistencies regarding a third party do not diminish the specific, consistent allegations leveled against the present applicant.

The Court observed that the victim—a minor at the time of the incident—consistently supported the prosecution's case in her Section 161/164 Cr.P.C. statements, medical examination, and her deposition as P.W.-1.

The Court found that the gravity of the offense, involving the sexual exploitation of a child through blackmail and force, outweighed the applicant's arguments regarding delayed F.I.R. or lack of independent witnesses.

The Court ruled that given the gravity and nature of the allegations and the specific role assigned to the applicant, he did not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage; consequently, the bail application was rejected.