The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused facing charges under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, where the complainant’s age was in serious dispute and no corroborative evidence of sexual assault existed. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of unverified ossification reports when multiple consistent statements from the complainant and her family indicate she was above 18 at the time of marriage.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court granted bail to the accused facing charges under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the BNSS, holding that the age of the complainant was not conclusively established as below 18. The Court directed release on personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to appearance before the trial court. It explicitly clarified that this order does not prejudge the merits of the case.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Anwar Husain, was arrested in connection with FIR No.118/2025 registered at Police Station Shambhupura, Chittorgarh. The complainant, Shahana Mansoori, alleged that she was married to the petitioner four months prior to filing the complaint and had been subjected to physical assault. She initially disclosed her age as 19 in the FIR. However, during investigation, the police conducted an ossification test without any request from the complainant or her family, which estimated her age to be between 15 and 17 years. Based on this report, the charge sheet was amended to include serious offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which carry non-bailable and stringent penalties.
The complainant and her family members, in multiple statements recorded under the BNSS, consistently affirmed that she was above 18 at the time of marriage and cohabitation. The medical examination revealed no visible external injuries on her body, and she refused to undergo examination for sexual assault. The investigation was completed, and the trial was expected to take considerable time. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since October 13, 2025.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused be denied bail under the POCSO Act solely on the basis of an ossification report that contradicts the complainant’s own declaration of age and the consistent statements of her family, where no physical evidence of assault exists?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the complainant’s own statement in the FIR recorded her age as 19, and this was corroborated by multiple family members in their statements under the BNSS. The ossification report, conducted without consent and without any prior request, was unreliable and insufficient to override self-declared age and familial testimony. The absence of any visible injuries and the complainant’s refusal to undergo sexual assault examination further weakened the prosecution’s case. The petitioner had been in custody for over three months, the investigation was complete, and the trial would be protracted. Bail was warranted under the principles of Article 21 and the presumption of innocence.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factual assertions made by the petitioner regarding the complainant’s age disclosures or the lack of physical injuries. He opposed bail on the general ground that offences under POCSO are serious and non-bailable, but offered no specific rebuttal to the inconsistencies in the evidence or the reliability of the ossification report.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to accept the ossification report as conclusive proof of the complainant’s age, particularly in light of the contradictory and consistent statements from the complainant and her family. The Court noted that ossification tests are not infallible and are generally considered indicative rather than determinative, especially when they conflict with direct declarations made at the time of incident.
"The complainant herself disclosed her age as 19 years in the FIR, and this position has been reiterated by her family members in multiple statements recorded under the BNSS. The ossification report, conducted without any request or insistence from the complainant, cannot override these consistent declarations."
The Court further observed that the absence of any visible injuries and the complainant’s refusal to undergo a sexual assault examination significantly undermined the prosecution’s case under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must be guided by the balance of convenience, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, and the nature of the evidence - not merely the seriousness of the charge. The Court reiterated that its observations were strictly confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial court’s eventual determination of facts.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that bail cannot be automatically denied in POCSO cases merely because the charge sheet invokes non-bailable provisions. Where there is a credible dispute over the age of the complainant, and the prosecution relies solely on an ossification report that contradicts contemporaneous declarations, courts must conduct a nuanced assessment of the evidence. Practitioners should now routinely challenge the admissibility and reliability of ossification reports in bail hearings, especially when no independent corroboration exists. This ruling also underscores the importance of documenting complainant statements made at the earliest stage, as these may carry greater weight than later medical estimates. The judgment does not alter the substantive law under POCSO but clarifies the evidentiary threshold required to justify pre-trial detention in age-disputed cases.
