The Patna High Court has granted bail to an appellant convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC after finding that prolonged pre-trial custody, coupled with DNA evidence excluding him as the biological father of the victim’s child, rendered continued incarceration unjust. The order underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach to bail in sexual offence cases where factual anomalies and undue delay in appellate hearing undermine the presumption of innocence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sheikh Saidullah @ Md. Shaidullah, was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for the rape of a minor girl aged approximately 14 years. The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred in February 2020, shortly before Holi, when the appellant, a neighbour, lured the victim into a mustard field, tied her mouth with a stole, and committed rape. The victim, traumatized, did not disclose the incident until she developed abdominal pain and was found to be five to six months pregnant.
Key Facts
- The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 05.09.2020 based on the victim’s fardbayan.
- The victim was approximately 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident.
- Medical examination confirmed pregnancy of five to six months.
- A DNA test was conducted on the victim’s child and the appellant; the report conclusively stated that the appellant is not the biological father.
- The victim’s parents, in their testimonies, indicated that had the appellant married the victim and adopted the child, the case might not have been filed.
- No injuries consistent with assault were found on the victim during medical examination.
- The appellant has been in continuous custody since 06.09.2020.
Procedural History
- 05.09.2020: FIR registered at Ghorasahan Police Station, Case No. 354 of 2020.
- 30.07.2025: Conviction order passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO, Motihari, in POCSO Trial No. 144 of 2020.
- 19.08.2025: Sentencing order issued: rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 20,000; default imprisonment of 15 days.
- 06.09.2020: Appellant taken into custody.
- 2025: Appeal filed before the Patna High Court as Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3952 of 2025.
- 01.01.2026: Interim Application No. 01 of 2026 filed for suspension of sentence and bail.
- 12.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Anil Kumar Sinha.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant:
- Highlighted material inconsistencies between the FIR, Section 161/164 CrPC statements, and trial deposition.
- Emphasized the impossibility of a 14-year-old girl carrying a five-month pregnancy without family noticing physical changes.
- Cited the DNA report excluding him as the biological father as a critical contradiction to the prosecution’s narrative.
- Argued that the parents’ testimony suggested a possible consensual relationship, undermining the allegation of forcible rape.
- Noted that he had been in custody for five years and eight months with no prospect of early hearing.
For the Respondent (State):
- Contended that the victim’s testimony was consistent across all stages.
- Relied on corroborative testimony of PW2 and PW3.
- Argued that the gravity of the offence under POCSO precluded bail.
- Maintained that DNA evidence does not negate the occurrence of rape.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal, citing prolonged custody and the DNA report as compelling grounds.
The Legal Issue
Can an appellant convicted under the POCSO Act be granted bail pending appeal when there is conclusive DNA evidence excluding him as the biological father of the victim’s child and he has endured over five years of pre-trial custody with no foreseeable conclusion to the appeal?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on the principle that prolonged pre-trial detention without a timely appellate hearing violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar to argue that bail should not be denied solely on the nature of the offence when factual anomalies and custodial delay are present. The DNA report, he submitted, created a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s core narrative, even if it did not disprove rape outright. He further argued that the absence of injuries and the victim’s delayed disclosure raised questions about the veracity of the account.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that POCSO cases involve heinous crimes against children, and bail must be granted with extreme caution. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant to assert that the gravity of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim outweigh any procedural irregularities. He maintained that the victim’s consistent testimony and the corroborative evidence of witnesses were sufficient to uphold the conviction, and that DNA evidence pertains only to paternity, not the act of rape.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act but emphasized that the right to liberty is not suspended upon conviction pending appeal. It noted that the appellant had been in custody for five years and eight months - a period exceeding the sentence imposed - and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future. The Court observed:
"The DNA report conclusively excludes the appellant as the biological father of the child. While this does not, in isolation, disprove the act of rape, it fundamentally undermines the prosecution’s narrative of the incident’s origin and consequences. The prolonged detention under such circumstances raises serious concerns under Article 21."
The Court further noted that the victim’s parents’ testimony suggested a possible consensual relationship, and the absence of any physical injuries on the victim, despite the alleged violent assault, warranted reconsideration of the factual matrix. The Court held that while the conviction may stand, the balance of convenience and the principle of proportionality favoured interim release. It rejected the notion that POCSO convictions automatically disqualify an accused from bail, especially where custodial delay is extreme and material evidence casts doubt on the prosecution’s version.
The Verdict
The appellant’s interim application for bail was allowed. The execution of the sentence is suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each, to be approved by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO, Motihari. The Court directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing within six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Delay Can Override Gravity of Offence
- Practitioners must now argue that prolonged pre-trial detention - particularly exceeding half the sentence - is a compelling ground for bail, even in POCSO cases.
- Courts are increasingly willing to weigh custodial duration against the presumption of guilt pending appeal.
DNA Evidence as a Factor in Bail Decisions
- While DNA evidence does not exonerate an accused of rape, its exclusion of paternity can create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s narrative, especially when tied to pregnancy.
- This may justify bail where the prosecution’s case hinges on the child’s paternity as corroboration.
Procedural Anomalies Matter in Bail Hearings
- Inconsistencies in victim statements, absence of injuries, and delayed disclosure are now recognized as relevant factors in bail applications under POCSO.
- Courts will not automatically deny bail on the basis of offence severity alone; the factual matrix must be assessed holistically.
