The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a young accused in a POCSO case involving incest, recognizing the unique emotional and medical circumstances of the accused and the profound trauma affecting the entire family. While the charges are grave, the Court emphasized that bail is not a denial of guilt but a procedural safeguard, particularly where the accused’s health and familial context warrant humanitarian consideration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sanket S/o Babasaheb Bankar, aged 24, is accused of sexually assaulting his minor sister, resulting in her pregnancy. The incident led to the registration of Crime No. 475 of 2025 at Cantonment Chhawani Police Station, Chh. Sambhajinagar, under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The victim, the applicant’s younger sister, initially named another individual, Vijay Shinde, as the perpetrator. Subsequent investigation revealed the true identity of the offender as the applicant himself.
Key Facts
- The victim, a minor, was impregnated as a result of the assault
- The father of the victim filed the initial complaint on or before 02.12.2025
- A supplementary statement was recorded from the victim under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- A medical examination confirmed pregnancy and sexual assault
- The applicant was arrested on 02.12.2025
- The charge-sheet was filed on 20.12.2025
- The applicant is a student pursuing graduation
- The applicant has a documented history of heart disease and underwent bypass surgery
- The victim and the applicant are siblings; the complainant is their father
Procedural History
- 02.12.2025: Applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 475 of 2025
- 20.12.2025: Charge-sheet filed by Cantonment Chhawani Police Station
- 30.04.2026: Bail application filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
Learned counsel, Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, submitted that the victim’s statement under Section 183 indicated her complicity in initiating the relationship, thereby challenging her credibility. He further emphasized the applicant’s medical condition - post-bypass heart surgery - and his status as a full-time student. He assured the Court that the applicant was willing to reside separately from both his parents and the victim.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the incriminating material - including statements under Sections 181 and 183, and the medical report - established clear involvement of the applicant. The prosecution argued that the gravity of the offences under POCSO and BNS warranted denial of bail.
For Respondent No. 2 (Victim Informant)
The advocate for the victim’s family expressed no objection to the grant of bail.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on bail pending trial, with conditions ensuring non-interference with the investigation and separation from the victim and family home.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be granted in a serious POCSO case involving incest, despite the presence of incriminating evidence, when the accused suffers from a critical medical condition and the crime has caused irreparable trauma to the entire family unit.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused is not a flight risk and has no prior criminal record. He cited the applicant’s medical vulnerability, educational pursuits, and the fact that the victim’s own statement suggested a degree of mutual involvement. He argued that continued incarceration would exacerbate the applicant’s cardiac condition and that separation from the family home would prevent further emotional harm.
For the Respondent/State
The prosecution maintained that offences under POCSO and Section 64(1) of BNS are non-bailable and inherently heinous, especially when the accused is a family member. The statements under Sections 181 and 183, along with the medical report, formed a prima facie case. The State argued that granting bail could undermine public confidence in the justice system and risk witness tampering.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and the statutory presumption against bail under POCSO. However, it emphasized that the law does not mandate automatic denial of bail even in such cases. The Court noted that the victim’s own statement under Section 183 indicated a complex dynamic within the family, raising questions about coercion, consent, and psychological manipulation that may not be fully captured in a criminal charge.
"The father, who is the complainant, is the sufferer either way - whether the accused remains in custody or is released on bail. The Court must consider the human tragedy underlying the legal proceeding."
The Court further observed that the applicant’s medical condition, confirmed by his history of bypass surgery, posed a real risk to his life if detained. His status as a student pursuing graduation was also deemed relevant to his character and future prospects. The Court found no indication of flight risk or likelihood of tampering with evidence, especially since the charge-sheet was already filed and the victim’s family did not oppose bail.
The Court held that while the gravity of the offence cannot be ignored, the unique confluence of medical vulnerability, familial trauma, and the absence of any threat to the investigation justified the grant of bail under strict conditions.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 475 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: (a) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one solvent surety of like amount; (b) residence away from the parents’ home and the victim’s residence until the conclusion of the trial; (c) submission of his mobile number and current address to the investigating officer; and (d) full cooperation for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Vulnerability Can Justify Bail Even in Serious POCSO Cases
- Practitioners may now argue that pre-existing critical health conditions, especially where documented and life-threatening, constitute a valid ground for bail under Section 439 CrPC, even in non-bailable offences under POCSO
- Courts are likely to weigh medical reports and expert opinions more heavily in bail hearings involving vulnerable accused
Familial Trauma as a Mitigating Factor in Bail Decisions
- When the accused and victim are family members, courts may consider the emotional impact on the entire household, particularly when the complainant is a parent
- The absence of objection from the victim’s family may carry significant weight, even if the offence is severe
Conditions Over Custody: The Rise of Tailored Bail Frameworks
-
Bail in sensitive cases is increasingly being granted with highly specific, non-negotiable conditions (e.g., separation from victim, address disclosure)
-
Courts are moving away from binary choices (bail or jail) toward structured, monitored release
-
Always submit medical records and educational enrollment proof in bail applications involving POCSO or BNS
-
Where the victim’s family does not oppose bail, formally record their stance in writing and submit it with the application
-
Propose concrete, enforceable conditions - such as residence separation and digital monitoring - to reassure the Court of compliance
