Delhi High Court: Grants POCSO Bail Citing Young Age, Contradictory Statements

• The Delhi High Court granted bail to an applicant in a POCSO Act case, citing multiple mitigating factors.
• Key reasons for bail included the prosecutrix's contradictory statements and documented evidence of a prior romantic relationship.
• The young ages of both parties, the applicant's prolonged incarceration of over three years, and his lack of criminal antecedents were also crucial.
• The court noted that the trial was likely to be lengthy, further supporting the decision to grant bail.
• Precedents like *Praduman v. State Delhi bail* and *Dharmander Singh v. State Delhi bail* were referenced, highlighting the importance of age, relationship evidence, and statement discrepancies in bail considerations.

This prolonged incarceration, coupled with other factors, ultimately tilted the balance in favor of granting bail.

The Delhi High Court recently granted regular bail to an applicant facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), emphasizing several mitigating circumstances. Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over a Single Judge Bench, noted that the applicant had already spent approximately three years and two months in custody. This prolonged incarceration, coupled with other factors, ultimately tilted the balance in favor of granting bail.

The court's decision was significantly influenced by the prosecutrix's contradictory statements made at different stages of the investigation. Furthermore, the documented evidence of a prior romantic relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, including social media photographs, played a crucial role. The young ages of both individuals at the time of the incident, alongside the applicant's clean criminal record and the anticipated lengthy duration of the trial, were also considered vital POCSO Act bail mitigating factors.

The applicant was facing prosecution under various sections of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), specifically 363, 368, 376, 328, and 34, in addition to Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act. The case originated from an FIR registered at PS Aman Vihar, Delhi, following a missing person complaint filed by the prosecutrix's father. The court's detailed examination of the facts and legal precedents led to this significant ruling.

The prosecutrix was located on July 30, 2023. In her initial statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), she asserted that she had left her home voluntarily due to anger and held no grievances against anyone. However, she subsequently changed her account, alleging that the applicant had held her against her will and subjected her to sexual assault. These contradictory statements POCSO bail India were a key point of consideration for the court.

At the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was 14 years and 8 months old, having been born on November 12, 2008, while the applicant was 20 years and 4 months old. The applicant, who had been in custody since August 2023, contended that he and the prosecutrix had maintained a romantic relationship for eight to nine months prior to the alleged incident. This romantic relationship POCSO defence was supported by social media photographs, which the court also took into account.

Further evidence presented included a medical examination of the prosecutrix, which did not detect any drugs or intoxicants in her blood. The prosecution's status report indicated that DNA profiles of both the applicant and the prosecutrix were found in a mixed DNA sample from a blanket recovered from the scene, although no male DNA was generated from cervical swabs and smears. The complainant, however, countered this by suggesting the prosecutrix had been made to inhale something, which would explain the medical findings.

In its deliberation, the Delhi High Court explicitly acknowledged the prosecutrix's inconsistent narratives at different stages of the proceedings. The court also gave weight to the documentary evidence, including Instagram posts, which clearly depicted an intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix. The applicant's age of 20 and the prosecutrix's age of 14 at the time of the incident, combined with the applicant's prolonged incarceration, were critical factors.

The court referenced two significant precedents in its decision-making. It cited *Praduman v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, a 2021 case where the age of the parties, photographic evidence of a relationship, and discrepancies in statements were considered as mitigating circumstances for bail. Additionally, the court referred to *Dharmander Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, a 2020 ruling that established specific parameters for considering bail applications under the POCSO Act, including the ages of both the prosecutrix and the accused. These cases underscore the judiciary's approach to evaluating bail in POCSO matters, particularly when factors like a documented romantic relationship and contradictory statements are present.

Defence lawyers in India handling POCSO cases should leverage the Delhi High Court's emphasis on mitigating factors such as contradictory victim statements, documented prior romantic relationships, and prolonged incarceration to strengthen bail applications for their clients.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law