Failure of Victim to Identify Accused in TIP and Court Justifies Grant of Bail in POCSO Case.

The applicants (Mohseen, Murad Alam, and Moein) sought bail regarding Case Crime No. 151 of 2025 involving allegations of rape and the creation of an obscene video of a minor victim.

The F.I.R. named two other individuals, Azam and Alam Khan, for the assault, and alleged that others later filmed the victim and threatened her.

The applicants were arrested on May 7, 2025, and remained in custody after their bail applications were rejected by the lower court in October 2025.

Counsel for the applicants argued that they were not named in the F.I.R., were not identified by the victim during video conferencing or a court-conducted Test Identification Parade (TIP), and that no incriminating video was recovered from them.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail given the lack of identification by the victim and the absence of their names in the initial investigation and Section 183 BNSS statement.

2. Whether the continued judicial custody of the applicants is justified where no recovery of incriminating material has been made and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

The Court applied the provisions governing bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically in the context of offenses charged under Sections 115, 352(2), 351(2), 70(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3(a)/4, 5(g), (u)/6, and 13/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The primary legal principle applied was the assessment of the strength of the prosecution's evidence—specifically the evidentiary value of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS—against the right to liberty during trial.

The Court reasoned that the prosecution's case against these specific applicants was weakened by several critical factors: they were not named in the original F.I.R. nor in the victim's formal statement under Section 183 BNSS.

Although the victim named them in her examination-in-chief as PW-1, she subsequently failed to recognize them during video conferencing and failed to identify them during a formal TIP conducted behind a glass screen in court.

Furthermore, the court noted that despite allegations of an obscene video being used for blackmail, no such video or related digital evidence was recovered from the applicants' possession.

Given that the applicants had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since May 2025, the court found that the lack of corroborative identification and physical evidence justified their release while the trial proceeded.

The bail applications were allowed, and the Court directed that Mohseen, Murad Alam, and Moein be released upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not impact the final merits of the trial.