The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused in a serious POCSO and BNS case, emphasizing that material contradictions in the victim’s statements, absence of medical corroboration, and prolonged forensic delays outweigh the gravity of allegations at the pre-trial stage. The judgment reinforces that bail must be granted where the prosecution’s case is inherently doubtful, even in sexual offences against children.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ansar Alam, is accused in Crime No. 53 of 2025 under Sections 65(2), 76, 127(2), and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The allegations stem from an incident at Jariya, Hamirpur, where the victim, a minor girl, accused the applicant of sexual assault.
Key Facts
- The incident is alleged to have occurred on or about 14.04.2025.
- The FIR was registered on 15.04.2025 at Police Station Jariya.
- The applicant was arrested on 15.04.2025 and has been in judicial custody since that date.
- The victim’s statement under Section 180 BNSS alleged that the applicant touched her abdomen.
- In her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS, she altered her account, claiming the applicant inserted his finger into her private part.
- The FIR stated that family members arrived upon hearing the victim’s cry, after which the applicant fled.
- However, the victim’s statement also indicated that she and another girl, Akansha, left the scene and returned home after the incident - contradicting the FIR’s version of immediate family intervention.
- The medical examination report dated 17.04.2025 found no injury or trauma to the victim’s private parts.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Jhansi, was directed to conduct DNA testing, but as of the hearing date (09.07.2026), no report had been submitted despite a court order dated 01.06.2026.
- The charge sheet was filed on 20.05.2026, concluding the investigation phase.
- The applicant submitted an affidavit disclosing a prior single case of minor offence, with no history of violent or sexual crimes.
Procedural History
- 14.04.2025: Alleged incident occurred.
- 15.04.2025: FIR registered; applicant arrested and remanded to custody.
- 17.04.2025: Medical examination conducted; no injuries found.
- 01.06.2026: High Court directed FSL Jhansi to submit DNA report within stipulated time.
- 20.05.2026: Charge sheet filed by police.
- 09.07.2026: Bail application heard before the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contends that the prosecution case is built on inconsistent and unreliable testimony, with no physical or forensic evidence to support the allegations. He argues that the change in the victim’s version undermines the credibility of the entire case and that custodial interrogation is no longer necessary since the charge sheet has been filed.
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contradictions or the delay in the DNA report.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail during trial, with conditions to ensure cooperation and non-interference with the judicial process.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted in a serious POCSO and BNS case where the prosecution’s case is marred by material contradictions in the victim’s statements, absence of medical evidence, and unexplained delay in forensic reporting, even if the offence is non-bailable?
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel argued that the two versions of the victim’s statement - touching the abdomen versus penetration - are irreconcilable and render the prosecution’s case inherently unreliable. He cited Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025 SCC Online SC 3038) to emphasize that bail should not be denied merely on the basis of the nature of the offence when the evidence is weak. He further relied on Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765), which held that contradictions in witness statements, especially in sexual offence cases, must be weighed at the bail stage. He submitted that the absence of injury in the medical report and the non-submission of the DNA report for over a month after court direction further weaken the prosecution’s case. He also noted that the charge sheet has been filed, eliminating any need for custodial interrogation.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate opposed bail on the grounds that the offences under POCSO and BNS are serious and non-bailable. However, he did not dispute the factual contradictions, the lack of medical evidence, or the delay in the DNA report. He offered no counter-evidence or rebuttal to the applicant’s submissions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the material contradictions between the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It noted that the shift from a non-penetrative act to a penetrative one, without any plausible explanation, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The Court observed:
"The inconsistency between the two statements is not a minor discrepancy but a fundamental alteration of the nature of the alleged offence, which strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution’s case."
The Court further highlighted the absence of any injury in the medical report, which, in cases involving penetration, is a critical corroborative factor. It noted that the FSL report, ordered on 01.06.2026, remained pending for over a month without justification, undermining the prosecution’s ability to establish a prima facie case.
The Court also considered the mandate of Kapil Wadhawan and Maya Tiwari, which caution against automatic denial of bail in heinous cases where the evidence is questionable. It emphasized that the purpose of bail is not to determine guilt but to ensure that detention is not prolonged without sufficient grounds. The Court held:
"The pendency of criminal cases and overcrowding of jails are not mere administrative concerns - they are constitutional imperatives under Article 21. Custodial detention must be the exception, not the rule, especially when the prosecution’s case is riddled with doubt."
The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, stating that its decision was confined to the bail stage and based solely on the current state of evidence.
The Verdict
The applicant, Ansar Alam, is granted bail. He shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail is subject to strict conditions: no contact with witnesses, no tampering with evidence, no commission of further offences, and full cooperation in trial proceedings. The trial court must verify identity, residence, Aadhaar, and mobile number of the applicant and sureties before accepting bonds. The order shall be communicated to Hamirpur Jail via BOMS within 24 hours, and the applicant may be released on a downloaded copy of this order, with a certified copy to be filed within 15 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contradictory Testimony Can Justify Bail Even in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that material inconsistencies in victim statements, especially between early and later recorded versions, are sufficient to raise reasonable doubt at the bail stage.
- Courts cannot rely solely on the nature of the offence to deny bail when the evidence is internally contradictory.
- The absence of medical corroboration in penetration cases must be weighed heavily in bail applications.
Delay in Forensic Reports Weakens the Prosecution’s Position
- Unexplained delays in forensic reports (e.g., DNA, FSL) after court directions can be cited as grounds for bail, particularly when the charge sheet is already filed.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain delays; silence or inaction by the State supports the applicant’s case for liberty.
Bail Conditions Must Be Specific and Enforceable
- Courts are increasingly imposing detailed, verifiable conditions (Aadhaar, mobile, residence checks) to ensure compliance.
- Use of BOMS and e-prison portals for communication of bail orders is now mandatory under Supreme Court directives, and non-compliance may attract contempt.
Custodial Interrogation Ceases to Be Relevant After Charge Sheet
- Once the charge sheet is filed, the justification for continued custody under Section 167 CrPC (or equivalent under BNSS) no longer holds.
- Bail applications filed after charge sheet filing must be viewed with greater leniency, absent exceptional circumstances.
