Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case, Citing Material Inconsistencies In Victim’s Statements On Alleged Assault Date

The applicant, in judicial custody since 17 August 2025, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 333, 351(2), 64(2)(m) and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that he forcibly entered the complainant’s home, sexually assaulted her and threatened to circulate a video of the incident.

This was his second bail application; the first had been dismissed as withdrawn on 7 April 2026.

The applicant relied on differences in the victim’s accounts about the date of the alleged assault, including her deposition as PW-1, and on inconsistencies between her account and that of her aunt.

The State opposed bail but did not dispute the apparent inconsistencies or the period of custody.

The Court considered the charges under Sections 333, 351(2), 64(2)(m) and 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It also referred to the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180, 181 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The order cites no specific bail provision or precedent; it records the Court’s assessment that material inconsistencies in the statements, considered without expressing an opinion on the merits, supported the grant of bail.

The Court found material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements about the date of the alleged incident.

The State did not dispute the apparent inconsistencies or that the applicant had been in custody since 17 August 2025.

On that basis, and without deciding the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

Bail was subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses or evidence, cooperation with the investigation and trial, regular appearances unless exempted, prior permission before leaving India, and disclosure of current residential address and mobile number.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail in the event of a breach.