Absence Of Corroborative Medical Evidence Cannot Override Victim's Statement Under BNSS In Rape And POCSO Cases: Allahabad High Court

"The medico legal report does not support the allegation of commission of rape on her and the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years and 9 months as per certificate of Class V, however, there is no certificate of high school... [yet the victim] in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has categorically stated that the applicant committed rape on her." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 10, 2026, held that an accused can be granted bail even when medical evidence does not prima facie support allegations of sexual assault, provided the victim's statutory statements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) explicitly implicate the accused.

A bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha granted bail to an applicant accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while balancing the medical findings against the recorded testimony of a vulnerable victim.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Baheri in District Bareilly, where the first informant reported that his daughter had gone missing. The police subsequently apprehended the accused, Gyanchand, registering a case under Sections 137(2), 87, and 64(2)(k)(m) of the BNS, along with Section 5(1)(k)/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant approached the High Court seeking regular bail after his incarceration since October 22, 2025.

The primary question before the court was whether the lack of corroboration in the medico-legal report, coupled with procedural discrepancies in age determination, warrants the denial of bail when the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS implicate the accused. The court was also called upon to evaluate the applicability of Supreme Court precedents on overcrowding in prisons and the mandate for speedy liberty.

"Medical Report Fails To Support Allegations"

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the crime without any substantive incriminating material. It was contended that the FIR was lodged with a delay of two days against unknown persons, weakening the prosecution's initial narrative. Furthermore, the defense emphasized that the medico-legal report did not support the allegation of rape, and no radiological examination had been conducted to conclusively determine the victim's age.

"Victim Categorically Implicates Accused"

Opposing the bail plea, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the victim, despite being mentally retarded, gave categorical statements with the help of an interpreter under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. The state argued that her testimony directly pinned the commission of the offense on the applicant. The prosecution highlighted that the victim's age was recorded as 16 years and 9 months based on her Class V school certificate.

"Mandate Of Apex Court In Kapil Wadhawan Applied"

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the alleged offense, and the complicity of the accused, the court factored in systemic concerns. Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha took judicial notice of overcrowded jails and heavy pendency before trial courts. The bench invoked the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038) and the Allahabad High Court's directives in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC Online All 6765).

"Conditions Imposed To Ensure Fair Trial"

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the court ruled that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The application was allowed subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bench imposed stringent conditions, including prohibitions against tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, or indulgence in any further criminal activity, warning that any breach would lead to immediate cancellation of bail.

"BOMS And E-Prison Portal Compliance Ordered"

To give effect to the Supreme Court's directives in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 [(2024) 10 SCC 685], the court issued specific administrative mandates. The trial court was directed to transmit the release order through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS). Additionally, the registry was instructed to forward a digital copy of the order to the Jail Superintendent via e-mail or the e-prison portal within 24 hours to ensure the swift release of the applicant.

Date of Decision: 10 August 2026