The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in a serious case involving allegations under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, after finding that the prosecution’s core allegations lacked evidentiary support. The judgment underscores that gravity of offence alone cannot override the absence of prima facie evidence of coercion or force, particularly when the victim and family have exonerated the accused.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Amar Singh Rajpoot, was arrested on 16.09.2025 in connection with Crime No. 427/2025 registered at Police Station Garha, Jabalpur, for alleged offences under Sections 96, 64(2)(m), and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 3(1)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(i), and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Sections 5L and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, aged around 27 years, kidnapped and subjected a minor girl, aged approximately 15 years, to penetrative sexual assault.
Key Facts
- The victim, identified as PW-1, was approximately 19 years old at the time of the incident, according to her testimony and that of her parents (PW-2 and PW-3).
- The prosecution’s case hinges on the assertion that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, triggering application of the POCSO Act.
- The victim, her mother, and her father, all prosecution witnesses, testified before the trial court and did not support the accusation of kidnapping or forcible sexual assault.
- There is no evidence of enticement, compulsion, threat, or force in the statements of the victim or her family.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
- The applicant is a labourer by profession, aged around 27 years, and is economically dependent on family and occasional work.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.09.2025.
- The trial is expected to take considerable time to conclude.
Procedural History
- 16.09.2025: Arrest of applicant by police.
- 16.09.2025: Crime No. 427/2025 registered at Police Station Garha, Jabalpur.
- 29.04.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- 29.04.2026: Hearing before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The victim and her family have exonerated him in their testimonies.
- The age of the victim is in doubt, undermining the foundation of the POCSO charges.
- There is no evidence of force, enticement, or coercion.
- The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
- He is not a flight risk and has no history of evading legal process.
- All material witnesses have already been examined, eliminating risk of tampering.
- Prolonged incarceration is causing undue hardship to a young, economically vulnerable individual.
- He is willing to cooperate fully with the trial.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel opposed bail on the ground of the gravity of the offences. However, the counsel conceded that:
- No criminal antecedents were reported against the applicant.
- The evidence on record does not establish force or enticement.
- The victim’s testimony and that of her parents do not corroborate the prosecution’s version.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on bail pending trial, with conditions to ensure his presence and non-interference with the judicial process.
The Legal Issue
Can bail be granted in a case involving serious offences under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act when the prosecution’s own witnesses have exonerated the accused, and there is no prima facie evidence of force, enticement, or coercion?
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the prosecution’s case lacks credibility. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that gravity of offence cannot override the absence of reasonable grounds for belief in guilt. He emphasized that the victim’s testimony, which is central to the POCSO and SC/ST Act charges, does not support the allegations. The applicant further argued that the determination of the victim’s age is doubtful and must be resolved at trial, not at the bail stage.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the nature of the offences - particularly under POCSO and the SC/ST Act - demanded strict denial of bail due to societal impact and severity. However, the State’s counsel, after reviewing the case diary and witness statements, conceded that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations of force or abduction, and that the applicant had no criminal history.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the case diary and the testimonies of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), and her father (PW-3). It found that none of these witnesses supported the prosecution’s claim of kidnapping or forcible sexual assault. The Court noted:
"The element of enticement, compulsion or force is missing in the evidence of the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2) and her father (PW-3) recorded before the trial Court."
The Court further observed that the age of the victim, which is critical to the applicability of the POCSO Act, is in serious doubt and must be determined through evidence at trial. The Court held that the applicant’s contentions have prima facie merit and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless.
The Court also considered the applicant’s socio-economic status, lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that all material witnesses have already been examined. It concluded that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The Court emphasized that incarceration pending trial, particularly for a young person with no prior record and no means to sustain himself, constitutes undue hardship.
The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for the purpose of the bail application and without prejudice to the merits of the case.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court granted bail to Amar Singh Rajpoot upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety of the same amount, subject to strict conditions. The bail is effective until the conclusion of the trial. The Court directed that the conditions be reproduced on the personal and surety bonds, with certification by a scribe if the accused or surety is illiterate. The Trial Court is empowered to cancel bail on breach of conditions without needing further direction from this Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on Gravity of Offence
- Practitioners must argue that gravity of offence under POCSO or SC/ST Act cannot override the absence of prima facie evidence of coercion or force.
- Where the victim and family exonerate the accused, bail becomes a strong legal proposition.
- Courts must distinguish between allegations and evidence - allegations alone are insufficient to deny bail.
Age Determination Is Central in POCSO Bail Applications
- If the victim’s age is disputed and not conclusively established, the applicability of POCSO is in question at the bail stage.
- Courts should not assume minor status without documentary or reliable testimonial proof.
- Defence counsel should immediately seek medical or school records to challenge age allegations.
Prosecution Witnesses’ Testimony Trumps Police Narrative
- When prosecution witnesses contradict the FIR or charge sheet, the court must treat this as a material consideration for bail.
- This judgment reinforces that the court’s role at the bail stage is not to decide guilt, but to assess whether there is a reasonable basis for continued detention.
- Defence lawyers should prioritize obtaining and highlighting exonerating statements from prosecution witnesses in bail applications.
