POCSO Act Bail | Hostile Witnesses and Proven Majority of Victim Justify Bail Under BNSS Section 483 : Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to an accused charged under the POCSO Act and IPC, where the victim and key witnesses turned hostile, confirming the victim’s majority and marital relationship with the accused. The judgment underscores the significance of witness credibility and age verification in cases involving serious offences, offering critical guidance for bail applications where prosecution evidence is weakened by contradictory statements.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Om Prakash, was accused in FIR No. 154/2025 dated 08.05.2025, registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhilwara, under Sections 143, 366, 342, 376, 376(2)(n), and 376-D of the IPC; Sections 115(2), 74, 303(2), 189(2), and 331(2) of the BNS; and Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, additional charges under Sections 109 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 9, 5(f)(ii), 5(l), 6, 16, 17, and 18 of the POCSO Act were added.

Key Facts

• The complainant, Sayari Devi (mother of the victim), initially alleged that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
• During trial, the complainant (PW-1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
• The victim (PW-2) stated in her deposition that she was born on 21.12.2001, making her 25 years old at the time of the incident, and confirmed her marriage to the petitioner. She further stated that they have a child together and she resides at her in-laws’ place.
• The victim’s sister (PW-3) also deposed that the victim is married to the petitioner and resides with his family.
• The petitioner contended that the victim’s minority was falsely alleged based on forged school records, and that similar allegations were previously made against another individual, resulting in a separate FIR and charge sheet.

Procedural History

• 08.05.2025: FIR lodged under the aforementioned sections.
• 29.10.2025: Petitioner arrested and placed in judicial custody.
• 02.02.2026: Report filed in the trial court, noting the hostile stance of the complainant and victim.
• 29.06.2026: Present bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC).

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that:

• The prosecution’s case was weakened by hostile witnesses.
• The victim was a major at the time of the incident.
• The trial was likely to take a prolonged period, and continued incarceration would serve no purpose.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether bail could be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case involving serious offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, where the prosecution’s key witnesses, including the victim, turned hostile and contradicted the initial allegations regarding the victim’s age and the nature of the relationship between the accused and the victim.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were false and motivated by malice.
• The victim (PW-2) and her sister (PW-3) had categorically stated that the victim was a major and married to the petitioner, with whom she has a child.
• The complainant (PW-1) had turned hostile, undermining the prosecution’s case.
• The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 29.10.2025, and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time.
• The petitioner deserved bail as no purpose would be served by his continued detention.

For the Respondent/State

• The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application, though the judgment does not specify the grounds for opposition.

The Court's Analysis

The Court carefully examined the material on record, including the statements of the witnesses and the challan papers. Key observations included:

1. Hostile Witnesses: The complainant (PW-1) and the victim (PW-2) had turned hostile, with the victim confirming her majority and marital relationship with the petitioner. The victim’s sister (PW-3) also corroborated this version.
2. Age Discrepancy: The victim’s statement that she was born on 21.12.2001 (making her 25 years old at the time of the incident) contradicted the initial allegation that she was a minor. The Court noted that the POCSO charges appeared to be based on forged school records.
3. Marital Relationship: The victim’s deposition that she was married to the petitioner and had a child with him further weakened the prosecution’s case, particularly the allegations under the POCSO Act, which criminalizes sexual offences against minors.
4. Prolonged Trial: The Court observed that the trial was likely to take a long time, and keeping the petitioner in custody indefinitely would serve no fruitful purpose.

The Court held: "Considering the fact that the complainant has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile; the victim and her sister have also turned hostile and have categorically deposed that victim was major at the time of incident, more so considering the fact that victim has married the present petitioner and from the wedlock, a child has born and she is residing at her in-laws place, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will take sufficiently long time."

The Verdict

The Court allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS. The petitioner, Om Prakash, was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner must appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and as required until the completion of the trial.
• The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application and should not prejudice the trial court’s findings.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Hostile Witnesses Can Undermine Prosecution’s Case

• This judgment reinforces that hostile witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case, particularly in offences involving serious allegations like those under the POCSO Act and IPC.
• Practitioners should emphasize discrepancies in witness statements, especially when key witnesses (including the victim) contradict the initial allegations. Courts may be inclined to grant bail where the prosecution’s evidence is substantially weakened.

Age Verification Is Critical in POCSO Cases

• The POCSO Act applies exclusively to minors, and allegations of minority must be substantiated by reliable evidence. In this case, the victim’s statement regarding her age (25 years) contradicted the prosecution’s reliance on forged school records.
• Defence counsel should scrutinize age-related documents and cross-examine witnesses to establish discrepancies, as false allegations of minority can lead to bail.

Bail in Serious Offences: Balancing Incarceration and Trial Delays

• The Court granted bail despite the seriousness of the offences, citing the prolonged trial period and the lack of purpose in keeping the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely.
• This judgment aligns with the principle that bail should not be denied merely on the gravity of the offence if the prosecution’s case is weakened by contradictory evidence. Practitioners can argue for bail where the trial is likely to be delayed and the accused’s continued detention serves no purpose.

Forged Evidence and Malicious Prosecution

• The judgment highlights the potential for false implication in cases involving personal disputes or blackmail attempts. Here, the petitioner alleged that similar false allegations were previously made against another individual.
• Defence counsel should investigate prior complaints or FIRs involving the same parties to establish a pattern of malicious prosecution, which can strengthen bail applications.