#bail in sexual offences

The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a POCSO case where the victim’s statement contradicted the FIR, no medical evidence supported penetrative assault, and the conduct fell under Section 8 - not Section 6. This reinforces that proportionality and evidentiary rigor must guide bail decisions in sexual offence cases, especially where allegations lack corroboration and involve non-penetrative acts.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that bail under POCSO Act and BNSS cannot be automatically denied in cases involving consensual relationships with minors if there is no evidence of force or coercion. The court emphasized that pending medical reports and the absence of custodial detention necessity justify bail, setting a precedent for evaluating minor consent in sexual offence cases.

Patna High Court granted bail to a POCSO convict after five years in custody, emphasizing that DNA evidence excluding paternity and prolonged detention without trial progress violated the right to a fair trial under Article 21. The ruling underscores that statutory presumptions under POCSO cannot override factual anomalies and undue delay in justice delivery.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a conviction under POCSO and IPC 376(3) after finding the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of DNA evidence or verify the minor’s age through official records. This ruling reinforces that in sexual offense cases involving children, procedural lapses in evidence collection cannot be overlooked - even when the offense appears grave - and shifts the burden squarely onto the state to meet foundational evidentiary standards.