Lack of medical and forensic corroboration supported bail in a POCSO case.

The complainant reported that his 15-year-and-6-month-old daughter had gone missing. She and the petitioner were found four days later.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had eloped with her on the promise of marriage and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault; the petitioner was charged under Sections 137(1)(b), 64 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail pending trial for the alleged offences under the BNS and POCSO Act

2. Whether the victim’s statement and the medical and FSL material, considered at the bail stage, supported continued pre-trial detention

The Court considered its bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC).

It stated that bail considerations include the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of absconding, reoffending or tampering with witnesses, and the accused’s character and antecedents.

A bail court should not conduct a mini-trial by scanning the prosecution case in detail.

The Court noted that the victim was a minor and that, in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, she described the relationship and elopement but said the sexual act was forcible.

It also considered the FSL findings, including the absence of seminal stains in specified articles and the absence of spermatozoa in others, together with the medical opinion that there was no evidence of recent forcible penetration.

The Court regarded this material as providing no prima facie corroboration of the victim’s statement for the purpose of the bail application.

Having also noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed, it concluded that bail was warranted, without undertaking a trial of the allegations.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not tamper with prosecution witnesses, attend every hearing, and not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without its permission; breach could result in cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were only for disposal of the bail petition.