GRAVE ALLEGATIONS OF REPEATED MINOR SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND VICTIM TESTIMONY OVERRIDE LONG CUSTODY AND PROCEDURAL DELAYS

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 245 of 2025

The complainant (the victim's father) alleged that the victim’s mother coerced her 13-year-old daughter into repeated sexual intercourse with the applicant and another co-accused at various locations, including Haridwar and Agra, and forced her to consume liquor

The victim supported these allegations in statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. and during her testimony as P.W.1

The applicant, in custody since June 4, 2025, argued that the case was concocted, citing a five-month delay in the F.I.R. and the "improbability" of the events given the victim resided at a boarding school in Dehradun

Sections 3(5), 351(3), 70(2), and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, alongside Sections 3(a)/4(ii) and 5(l)(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012

Procedural compliance regarding the recording of victim statements was governed by Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023

In heinous offenses affecting the physical integrity of a child, prolonged custody alone is not a sufficient ground for bail if there is a prima facie case and a possibility of influencing witnesses

The court reasoned that the allegations involve the repeated sexual exploitation of a minor, which constitutes a heinous offense against the moral and physical integrity of a child

While the defense raised points regarding the delay in the F.I.R. and the logistical difficulty of the mother accessing the victim at a residential school, the court held that these are matters for trial and cannot be examined in detail at the bail stage

The court noted that the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., and her subsequent deposition as P.W.1, consistently supported the prosecution’s version, providing a strong prima facie case

Consequently, the court found that the gravity of the accusations and the need for custodial protection to prevent witness interference overrode the applicant’s arguments for liberty

The court directly answered the issues by stating that the explanation for the delay did not dilute the gravity of the allegations at this stage and that prolonged custody is not an absolute ground for bail in such serious cases

The bail application was rejected