elhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO Case: Discrepancies in Victim’s Testimony Considered.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused charged under Sections 137(2)/127(2)/64/87/123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, observing notable discrepancies in the complainant’s version of events and lack of corroborative evidence such as CCTV footage. The Court held that since the complainant had already been examined and the accused had been in custody for about nine months, continued incarceration was not justified at the current stage of trial. The Court emphasized that its observations were limited to the bail determination and should not influence the trial’s merits.

Background:

• An FIR was registered on 08.02.2025 at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, based on a complaint alleging that on the night of 06.02.2025, the applicant–a neighbour of the 17-year-old complainant–had dragged her to his house, made her consume alcohol forcibly, and committed sexual assault after she lost consciousness.

• The victim regained consciousness at 5:00 AM and found herself undressed beside the applicant.

• The police conducted medical examination (MLC No. 26738) and arrested the applicant the same day. The chargesheet was filed on 01.04.2025.

• The defence argued false implication, citing two days’ delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, and absence of CCTV evidence despite its existence.

• The State opposed bail, arguing that the allegations were serious and the testimony consistent, with FSL reports pending and only two witnesses examined out of sixteen.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court noted inconsistencies between the FIR and the complainant’s testimony: while the FIR stated she was dragged to the applicant’s house, her deposition suggested she was assaulted after being made to drink something in her own room and later found herself at the applicant’s house.

• Both families lived on the same floor, and the presence of other family members (two minor children) at the scene contradicted her earlier statement that she was alone.

• The Investigating Officer (IO) failed to retrieve or verify CCTV footage, even though its existence was admitted.

• The complainant had already been examined during trial, eliminating apprehension of influence.

• The Court also considered that the accused had been in custody for about nine months, while the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Decision:

• The Court allowed the bail application, directing release of the accused on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The accused shall not leave India without court permission and shall surrender his passport.
2. He shall keep the Court and Investigating Officer informed of any change in address or contact details.
3. He must attend court proceedings regularly unless exempted.
4. He shall not contact or influence the complainant or any prosecution witness.
5. • The Court clarified that its findings were limited to bail adjudication and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 137(2)/127(2)/64/87/123, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Offences relating to assault, criminal force, and sexual offences.

• Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.

• Section 183, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Examination of witnesses and recording of statements.

• Article 226, Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Case: Arjun v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Decision: 03 November 2025

Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3189/2025