Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of School Caretaker Accused Of Raping 3-Year-Old; Says Child’s Version Cannot Be Rejected Due To Minor Incoherence

"A child of such tender age may appear to be incoherent and sometimes even illogical but that does not mean that what a child is saying is incorrect," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that bail in POCSO cases involving toddlers cannot be granted by ignoring the victim's version merely because of a lack of medical injuries or minor chronological inconsistencies.

A bench of Justice Vinod Kumar observed that a three-year-old child cannot be equated with an adult victim who can narrate facts with perfect chronological accuracy, and such "tender age" vulnerability must be the primary consideration for courts.

The court was hearing two petitions filed by the State and the victim's mother challenging a Trial Court order that granted regular bail to a school caretaker within a week of his arrest. The respondent was accused of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 64(1) of the BNS on a three-year-old nursery student in the school basement.

The primary question before the court was whether the Trial Court erred in granting bail at a premature stage of the investigation by selectively appreciating electronic and medical evidence. The court was also called upon to determine if the absence of external injuries in the MLC is sufficient to doubt the credibility of a toddler's statement in a POCSO case.

Trial Court Failed To Appreciate The Crux Of The Case

The High Court observed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge missed the fundamental issue of why a three-year-old child would make such a grave complaint and identify the specific offender and place of occurrence without motive. The bench noted that the respondent was arrested on May 1, 2026, and was granted bail on May 7, 2026, just a week later when the investigation was in full swing.

The court emphasized that while minute Fact-finding is not required at the bail stage, the court must broadly weigh the prosecution’s allegations against the defense’s points. It noted that in this case, the Trial Court failed to account for the fact that out of ten staff members, only two were male, making a mistake in identification by the victim highly unlikely.

"Child Victims Cannot Be Equated To Adults" - Court Elaborates On Credibility Of Testimony From Toddlers

Justice Vinod Kumar highlighted that the Trial Court failed to recognize the inherent nature of testimony from a child of tender age. The bench observed that such children might appear incoherent, but that does not render their statements incorrect or false. The court noted that the victim narrated the incident to her mother immediately and later identified the respondent and the crime scene.

The bench held that this evidence cannot be rejected at the bail stage simply because CCTV footage showed the respondent leaving the wing at a certain time. "Learned Additional Sessions Judge missed a very important fact that the victim is barely three years old and such a small child cannot be equated with an adult victim," the judgment reads.

"Absence Of Medical Injury Not A Ground For Bail In POCSO" - Court Rejects Defense Plea Based On Lack Of Physical Marks

The respondent had argued that the Medical Legal Report (MLC) showed no redness or injury, which contradicted the allegation of penetrative assault. However, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in X vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2026), which established that the absence of medical corroboration does not negate the nature and gravity of the offense under the POCSO Act.

The court noted that the Trial Court's reliance on the absence of external injuries was erroneous. It stated that the vulnerability of the victim and the statutory rigors of the POCSO Act must outweigh the lack of immediate physical marks, especially when the investigation is still ongoing and forensic reports are awaited.

Investigation Was At A Crucial Stage - Premature Grant Of Bail Interferes With Ends Of Justice

The High Court found that the Trial Court granted bail while crucial forensic evidence, including the FSL report on blood-stained exhibits and the examination of the CCTV DVR, was still pending. The bench noted that the respondent's initial non-cooperation with the police and the "suspicious non-functionality" of 64 CCTV cameras were significant circumstances that the Trial Court overlooked.

Furthermore, the court accepted the State's contention that the respondent, having been associated with the school for over three decades, exercised considerable influence over the staff who are material witnesses. The bench held that there was a genuine apprehension of witness tampering if the respondent remained at liberty during the formative stage of the trial.

"The High Court would be justified in cancelling the bail if the Trial Court has missed some extremely important factors in an offence of grave nature."

In conclusion, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to set aside the bail order, stating it was necessary to secure the ends of justice. The court held that the Trial Court had conducted a "mini-trial" by undertaking a detailed appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the stage of bail. The petitions were allowed, and the respondent's bail was cancelled.

Date of Decision: 29 June 2026