Failure of Victim to Identify Accused in TIP and Evidence Negates Prosecution’s Case for Bail.

The applicants were in judicial custody since May 7, 2025, in connection with Case Crime No. 151 of 2025.

The prosecution alleged that after two named individuals raped a minor victim, the applicants reached the spot, filmed an obscene video of the victim, and threatened to circulate it.

The applicants were not named in the F.I.R. or the initial investigation.

During the trial, the victim named the applicants in her examination-in-chief on October 3, 2025, but subsequently failed to identify them during video conferencing and a court-supervised Test Identification Parade (TIP).

Bail applications were previously rejected by the lower court in October 2025.

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 F.I.R. and Section 183 BNSS statement.

2. Whether the lack of recovery of the alleged incriminating material (obscene video) from the applicants' possession warrants their release on bail pending trial.

The court considered the criteria for bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, while the underlying offenses were registered under Sections 115, 352(2), 351(2), 70(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 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 legal principles applied involve the assessment of prima facie evidence, the reliability of identification evidence (TIP), the duration of judicial custody, and the absence of criminal antecedents in determining the necessity of continued incarceration.

The court reasoned that several factors weakened the prosecution's case against the applicants at the bail stage.

Primarily, the court noted that the applicants were not named in the F.I.R. nor did their names appear in the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.

Crucially, the court found that the victim failed to identify the applicants during a formal Test Identification Parade (TIP) and through video conferencing, recognizing only the co-accused Azam.

Furthermore, the court observed that no obscene video was recovered from the applicants' possession to substantiate the allegations of filming and blackmail.

Given that the applicants have no criminal history, have been in custody since May 2025, and the trial is expected to take considerable time, the court determined that a case for bail was established.

The court held that the applicants made out a sufficient case for release based on the lack of identification and recovery.

It was ordered that the applicants be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not reflect on the merits of the trial.