Minor’s consistent testimony in POCSO cases outweighs absence of physical injuries or FIR delay for bail.

The applicant, a neighbor of the victim, was accused of committing sexual assault on a minor girl while her mother (the informant) was away at work

The victim disclosed the incident upon her mother’s return, and the FIR (No. 188 of 2025) was subsequently lodged at Police Station Transit Camp

The applicant allegedly threatened the victim with dire consequences to prevent disclosure

Following an investigation that included medical examination and school record verification confirming the victim's minority, a charge-sheet was filed

The applicant, in custody since June 27, 2025, moved for bail on grounds of false implication due to a tenancy dispute, lack of medical injuries, and delay in the FIR

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding bail during trial

Sections 351(2) (Criminal intimidation) and 65(2) (Punishment for rape on a girl under 16/12 years) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault

In sexual offences against minors, delay in FIR is often attributable to social factors and is not fatal to the prosecution

The absence of external injuries does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault

The Court observed that the victim’s age was verified as minor through school records

In analyzing the evidence, the Court noted that the victim gave consistent statements during the investigation and before the court (deposition), which cannot be disregarded at the bail stage

The Court rejected the applicant's argument regarding the delay in the FIR, ruling that psychological and social factors often cause such delays in POCSO cases

Regarding the lack of physical injuries, the Court held that "lack of physical injury does not necessarily negate the occurrence of the offence"

The Court found no prima facie evidence to support the applicant's claim that a tenancy dispute led to false implication

The bail application was rejected