Victim’s denial of sexual relationship and absence of medical evidence warrants bail under POCSO Act.

The applicant, Kuldeep, was taken into judicial custody on May 1, 2025, in connection with F.I.R. No. 0365 of 2025

The informant (the victim's father) alleged that his minor daughter left their home on April 25, 2025, and suspected the applicant had taken her

The victim was subsequently recovered in the company of the applicant

During the investigation, the informant refused to grant consent for the victim's medical examination

Both in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her testimony before the trial court as PW-1, the victim stated that the applicant did not establish any physical relationship with her

The applicant, aged 19, sought release on bail pending trial

Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given the victim's testimony denying physical relations and the absence of medical evidence?

The Court considered the penal provisions of Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping), 87, 65(1), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 3(d), 4(2), 5B, and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

It also considered the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and testimony provided during trial

The court applied the general principles governing bail, specifically the likelihood of the accused absconding and the duration of the trial

The Court observed that the informant’s refusal to permit a medical examination significantly weakened the physical evidence of sexual assault

Most critically, the Court noted that the victim herself categorically denied any physical relationship with the applicant in both her investigative statements and her judicial testimony as PW-1

On these grounds, the Court found that the essential ingredients for sexual assault under the POCSO Act were not prima facie established

Furthermore, considering the applicant's "tender age" of 19, his period of incarceration since May 2025, and the expected duration of the trial, the Court determined that the applicant was unlikely to abscond or misuse the liberty of bail

The Court allowed the bail application

The Court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court