The Bombay High Court has clarified that in POCSO cases, inconsistent or omitted allegations in prior sworn statements by the victim can cast serious doubt on the reliability of the FIR, warranting bail even where the offence is grave. This ruling reinforces that bail is not automatically denied in sexual offences against children when the prosecution's case is undermined by internal contradictions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Vasant Anandrao Idhol, is accused in Crime No. 199 of 2025 registered at Malvani Police Station for offences under Sections 137(2), 64, 64(2)(d), (ch), 65, 75, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 4, 5(l), (n), 6, 10, 17, 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The complainant is a minor girl, a relative of the applicant on her mother’s side. She alleged that the applicant sexually abused her. The FIR was lodged on 12.02.2025, following a report facilitated by an NGO.
Key Facts
- The complainant is a minor girl, aged below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The complainant had previously filed Crime No. 579 of 2024 against another individual, alleging sexual abuse
- In Crime No. 579 of 2024, the complainant’s statement was recorded by the police and subsequently before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC
- No mention of the applicant was made in either the police statement or the Magistrate’s recorded statement under Section 164 CrPC in Crime No. 579 of 2024
- The chargesheet in Crime No. 199 of 2025 was filed on the basis of the complainant’s subsequent allegations against the applicant
Procedural History
- 12.02.2025: FIR registered at Malvani Police Station, Crime No. 199 of 2025
- Post-investigation: Chargesheet filed by the police
- 04.05.2026: Criminal Bail Application No. 3658 of 2025 filed before the Bombay High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The complainant’s failure to mention the applicant in her prior, sworn statements under Section 164 CrPC in Crime No. 579 of 2024 indicates fabrication
- The applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not a flight risk
- The applicant undertakes not to contact the victim or any witness
For the Respondent (State and Victim)
- The nature of the offences under POCSO and BNS is grave and heinous
- The victim’s statement before the police and Magistrate in the current case is consistent and credible
- Granting bail may lead to intimidation or pressure on the victim
Relief Sought
The applicant sought bail on personal bond with sureties, with conditions to avoid contact with the victim and to appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the inconsistency between the victim’s prior sworn statement under Section 164 CrPC and her subsequent allegations in the FIR renders the prosecution’s case so unreliable that bail may be granted despite the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the victim’s failure to disclose the alleged abuse by the applicant during her earlier, formal statements before the Magistrate in Crime No. 579 of 2024 undermines the credibility of the current allegations. The counsel relied on the principle that a victim’s statement, while admissible as sole evidence, must be reliable and free from contradiction. The applicant’s clean record and willingness to submit to bail conditions were emphasized.
For the Respondent/State
The State and victim’s counsel contended that the gravity of offences under POCSO and BNS, particularly those involving sexual abuse of a minor, demands strict denial of bail. They argued that the victim’s current statement is consistent and that prior omissions may be due to fear, trauma, or coercion, and cannot be used to discredit the entire case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the settled legal position that a victim’s testimony, if found credible, can sustain a conviction even without corroboration. However, the Court emphasized that when a victim’s prior sworn statements under Section 164 CrPC omit material allegations that would naturally have been disclosed, such omission raises a legitimate doubt about the veracity of the current allegations.
"Here in this case, crime No.579 of 2024 registered by the informant against another person, her statement was recorded not only before the police but also before the learned Magistrate. This Court finds substance in the contention of the counsel for the Applicant that if any such incident would have occurred, it was open for the victim to narrate the same at least to the learned Magistrate, who is an independent person. Non-disclosure of any such incident to the learned Magistrate creates serious doubt about the allegations made in the present crime."
The Court noted that the Magistrate’s recording under Section 164 CrPC is a solemn, legally protected procedure designed to elicit truthful testimony. The absence of any reference to the applicant in that context, despite the complainant having previously made serious allegations of sexual abuse, was deemed a critical anomaly. The Court further observed that the applicant’s lack of criminal history and his unconditional undertaking not to contact the victim or interfere with evidence significantly mitigated the risk of tampering.
The Court distinguished this case from those where the victim’s statement is consistent across stages, and where no prior opportunity to disclose the allegation was available. Here, the prior opportunity existed and was not utilized.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The applicant is granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety or two sureties of like amount, to be approved by the Trial Court. The applicant must appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates unless exempted, and is strictly prohibited from contacting the victim or any witness directly or indirectly, or interfering with prosecution evidence. The Court clarified that these observations are prima facie and shall not bind the Trial Court during trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Sworn Statements Can Undermine POCSO Allegations
- Practitioners must meticulously compare all prior statements of the victim, especially those recorded under Section 164 CrPC, for omissions or contradictions
- A failure to mention the accused in a prior sworn statement, when the context was conducive to disclosure, may justify bail even in serious POCSO cases
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why the allegation was omitted earlier
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied in POCSO Cases
- Gravity of offence alone cannot override the requirement of a prima facie credible case
- Clean record and unconditional undertakings to avoid contact with the victim are strong mitigating factors
- Courts must evaluate the reliability of the prosecution’s case at the bail stage, not merely the nature of the charge
Judicial Scrutiny of Victim Statements Is Mandatory
- Courts cannot treat all victim statements as inherently credible without testing for internal consistency
- The absence of corroboration is not fatal, but inconsistency in prior sworn testimony is a material consideration
- The prima facie nature of bail orders must be clearly stated to avoid prejudicing trial proceedings
