Bombay High Court Rejects Bail Plea In POCSO Case | Medical Report Shows Recent Forceful Penetration | Courts Must Exercise Extreme Caution In Granting Bail In Sexual Offences Against Minors
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant grant of regular bail in a case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court dismissed the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, observing that the medical examination corroborated the version of the minor victim and there existed a reasonable apprehension of the accused influencing the victim or witnesses if released on bail. The Court directed that the trial court shall decide the case on its own merits based on the evidence adduced and that this order shall not influence the final outcome of the case.
A bail application was filed before the High Court of Bombay under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail in connection with a crime registered at Malawani Police Station, Mumbai, alleging offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by a minor boy stating that he visited a beach with his friend for fishing. After finishing their activity, while sitting on the beach at around 6:30 p.m., an unknown person approached them and asked why they were sitting there, directing the boy to accompany him to see something in the bushes nearby. Though initially refusing, the boy eventually followed him.
On reaching the bushes, the boy did not notice anything unusual and attempted to leave. However, the person prevented him from leaving, forcibly removed his clothing, and committed unnatural carnal intercourse against his will. The boy allegedly tried to resist but was overpowered. Following the incident, the person revealed his identity and told him to inform anyone he wished. The boy then ran to his friend, narrated the incident, and they informed his mother. A complaint was lodged the same evening, and the accused was arrested.
During investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. The bail applicant contended that there were inconsistencies in the victim's statement, particularly regarding identification, as the boy initially referred to the person as unknown but later named him. The defence argued that the absence of a Test Identification Parade was fatal to the case. It was further submitted that considering the physical attributes of both the victim and the accused, it was improbable to overpower the victim without signs of struggle, and the medical examination did not conclusively prove recent injuries.
The prosecution opposed the bail application, submitting that the medical examination conducted the next day confirmed signs of recent forceful penetration and sexual violence could not be ruled out. It was argued that the FIR was lodged promptly, negating any possibility of fabrication, and that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Magistrate carried significant evidentiary value. The prosecution further submitted that the nature of the offence under POCSO was grave, involving severe psychological trauma to the minor victim, and releasing the accused on bail would risk influencing or intimidating the victim and witnesses.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the inconsistencies raised sufficient doubt and that bail should be granted. The prosecution, however, maintained that the applicant failed to show that the allegations were prima facie false or that he was falsely implicated.
Justice Amit Borkar observed “The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is a special legislation enacted to provide protection to children from sexual offences. Courts are guided by principles laid down by the Supreme Court that while bail is the rule and jail is the exception, special consideration must be given to the nature of the offence, the age of the victim, and the potential impact on the victim and society.”
The Court stated “Section 4 of the POCSO Act prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault with imprisonment of not less than seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment.”
It was recorded “The medical examination report clearly indicates signs of recent forceful penetration and states that sexual violence cannot be ruled out. The examination was conducted on the day immediately following the incident, lending credibility to the findings.”
Justice Borkar stated “The contention that medical findings do not indicate recent origin of injuries is not sustainable when the report specifically mentions signs suggesting recent forceful penetration.”
The Court further observed “The victim initially described the accused as an unknown person but subsequently provided his name. This sequence is not uncommon in sexual assault cases where the victim may initially be in shock and trauma, and the accused may reveal his identity during or after commission of the offence.”
It was recorded “The absence of a Test Identification Parade does not automatically vitiate the prosecution case, particularly when the accused’s identity was allegedly disclosed by himself to the victim.”
Justice Borkar stated “Sexual offences often involve psychological coercion, fear, and shock, which may prevent the victim from offering effective physical resistance.”
It was observed “The timeline shows the incident occurred at around 6:30 p.m. and the FIR was lodged at 9:30 p.m. on the same day. This prompt reporting negates the possibility of fabrication or afterthought.”
The Court recorded “The victim immediately disclosed the incident to his friend and mother before approaching the police, demonstrating natural human behaviour in traumatic situations.”
It was stated “While every accused has a fundamental right to liberty, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the larger interests of justice, public order, and protection of victims, particularly minors.”
Justice Borkar recorded “The trauma suffered by child victims in sexual assault cases is immense and long-lasting. The criminal justice system must be sensitive to their plight and ensure they are not subjected to further victimisation through intimidation or influence.”
The Court observed “The inconsistencies highlighted by the applicant’s counsel are not of such magnitude as to completely destroy the prosecution case at this preliminary stage. These are matters that can be properly addressed during trial.”
It was recorded “The applicant has failed to make out a case for bail by showing that the allegations against him are prima facie false or that he has been falsely implicated.”
The Court directed that the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking regular bail stands rejected.
It recorded that the trial court shall decide the case on its own merits based on the evidence adduced during the trial and that the present order shall not influence the final outcome of the case.
The Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the allegations were prima facie baseless or that he had been falsely implicated, which is essential for securing bail in cases of this nature.
It was directed that public interest and the need to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving crimes against children, outweigh the applicant’s right to personal liberty at this stage.
Justice Borkar recorded that the present bail application lacked merit and was liable to be rejected for the following reasons:
First, the prosecution had established a prima facie case based on cogent evidence including the victim's statement, corroborative medical evidence, and prompt reporting.
Second, the nature and gravity of the offences alleged were serious, involving sexual assault on a minor child, warranting careful judicial consideration before releasing the accused on bail.
Third, there existed a reasonable apprehension that if released, the accused may influence or intimidate the minor victim or other witnesses, thereby jeopardising a fair trial.
Fourth, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the allegations were prima facie baseless or that he had been falsely implicated.
Fifth, public interest and the need to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving crimes against children, outweighed the applicant’s right to personal liberty at this stage.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Applicant: Mr. Aniket U. Nikam i/by Mr. Sumit Patil, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mrs. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for State; Mr. Viral Mukte, Advocate (Legal Aid) for the Victim
Case Title: XXX vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:26341
Case Number: Bail Application No. 879 of 2025
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar
