Delhi High Court grants bail after POCSO complainant denies allegations, says prosecution appeared prima facie false

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 06/2026, registered at PS Punjabi Bagh for offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, then about 37, repeatedly raped the 16-year-old prosecutrix.

At trial, the prosecutrix denied the alleged incidents and also denied appearing before a judge to have her statement recorded, despite the prosecution’s account that her statement had been recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The applicant relied on her testimony to seek bail; the State opposed, relying on her Section 183 BNSS statement.

The Court also noted that the investigating officer had taken no action concerning the apparent perjury, despite the State having indicated that it was considering legal action.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of the prosecutrix’s complete denial of the alleged incidents in her trial testimony.

2. Whether the prosecution’s failure to take action concerning the prosecutrix’s apparent denial of having made a statement before a magistrate affected the bail assessment.

The Court considered the charged offences under Section 64(2)(m) BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act, and the prosecution’s reliance on the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

The prosecutor had referred to Section 22(2) POCSO Act as protecting the prosecutrix, while indicating that the State was contemplating action, possibly under Section 217 BNS; the Court noted that no such action had been taken.

The Court stated that the object of a criminal trial is to arrive at the truth, not merely to secure a conviction, and that its observations on the prosecution case were made only for deciding bail and must not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment.

The Court distinguished this case from one involving a prosecutrix who claimed a consensual relationship: here, she denied the alleged incident altogether and denied ever appearing before a magistrate, notwithstanding the prosecution’s account of her Section 183 BNSS statement.

The Court considered both that testimony and the prosecution’s failure to take action concerning the apparent contradiction. At the bail stage, these circumstances led it to view the prosecution case as prima facie false and the applicant’s continued custody as unjustified, while expressly reserving the merits for independent determination at trial.

It directed that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent to inform the applicant.