Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case, Citing Victim’s Differing Accounts During Investigation And Trial

Satish sought bail while in judicial custody in a case registered at Police Station SIDCUL, Haridwar, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The victim, stated to be approximately 16 years old, was recovered with Satish on 27 February 2026.

In her investigative statement and medical examination, she did not support the prosecution version; at trial, as PW-1, she alleged that Satish had forcibly sexually assaulted her.

At the time of the bail hearing, her examination and cross-examination were incomplete, and Satish had been in custody since 27 February 2026.

The case involved charges under Sections 64(2)(m) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The victim’s investigative statement was recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied its bail discretion by considering the material on record, including the variation in the victim’s accounts; it cited no precedent or specific statutory provision governing bail.

The Court noted that the victim had not supported the prosecution version in her investigative statement or medical examination but had alleged forcible sexual assault in her trial testimony.

It treated that inconsistency as a matter for consideration at trial, rather than resolving it at the bail stage.

In granting bail, the Court also had before it the applicant’s period in custody and the submission that the trial would take considerable time; the victim’s examination and cross-examination remained incomplete.

It directed that Satish be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.