Possible mistaken identity after prolonged delay supported bail, subject to safeguards protecting the survivor.

The petitioner sought bail on behalf of her husband, who was arrested on 10 April 2026 in connection with Mawkyrwat P.S. Case No. 30(10) of 2014, registered under Sections 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(a)(f) IPC.

The alleged victim was approximately three and a half years old at the time of the alleged incident in 2014. The police had initially filed a final report after failing to identify or apprehend the perpetrator.

In 2018, the survivor reportedly identified the accused, whom she knew as a family friend and recalled as having red hair; the accused was arrested in 2026 and remained in custody. The case was pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), with prosecution evidence yet to be recorded.

The petitioner argued that the identification was belated and potentially mistaken, while the State and complainant opposed bail, citing the survivor’s continuing trauma.

Whether the accused should be released on bail pending trial, given the circumstances of the belated identification, the prior closure of the investigation, and his period in custody.

Whether conditions could adequately address the survivor’s safety and well-being while the accused was on bail.

The case was registered under Sections 3(a)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read with Section 376(a)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner invoked the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail, rather than jail, is ordinarily appropriate, relying on Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22.

The Court did not identify or elaborate a separate statutory test for bail; it considered the case materials, the circumstances of the identification and arrest, and the need for conditions protecting the survivor.

The Court noted that the investigation had initially ended in a final report because the perpetrator could not be identified, that the survivor’s identification was made in 2018, and that the accused was not arrested until 2026; the record did not show that the investigation had been reopened in 2018.

In those circumstances, the Court considered mistaken identity a plausible possibility and extended the accused the benefit of doubt for the purpose of bail, while expressly stating that this did not establish innocence, which remained for determination at trial.

It addressed the survivor’s reported trauma by referring to the counselling report and recommending that counselling continue until she was stable.

The Court considered that restrictions on contact and proximity could address the risk of association between the accused and the survivor.

The order also required a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety for a like amount; the judgment describes the bond amount as “₹30,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand),” an apparent inconsistency in the text.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.