Neighbour She Trusted As 'Dadu' Lured Her With A Mobile Phone, Raped Her, Fed Her Pesticide Poison: Tripura High Court Refuses Bail Under POCSO

"Chance Of Absconding Or Influencing Witnesses Not The Sole Criteria — Gravity And Heinousness Of The Offence Are Also Relevant To Decide Bail", High Court of Tripura has refused bail to a 55-year-old accused charged with rape, attempt to murder, and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, in a deeply disturbing case where a 15-year-old girl was lured into an abandoned house by a neighbour she trusted as her 'Dadu' — grandfather — who then raped her, throttled her, struck her with a brick, and administered Organophosphorus pesticide poison that left her battling acute liver failure at AIIMS, Delhi.

Justice S. Datta Purkayastha laid down an important principle for bail jurisprudence — that "the chance of absconding or influencing witnesses are not the sole criteria to consider the bail application. The gravity and heinousness of the offence and punishment prescribed therefore are also relevant to decide the bail application."

On 03.10.2025, the victim's father lodged an FIR before West Agartala Women Police Station after neighbours found his 15-year-old daughter unconscious in an abandoned house at West Joynagar. The victim disclosed that the accused — a long-known neighbour she called 'Dadu' — had raped her and tried to kill her. The case was registered under Sections 65(1)/109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, taken up as Special (POCSO) Case No. 67 of 2025. The accused was arrested on 04.10.2025. The chargesheet was filed under Sections 118(1)/75(2)/76/61(2)(a)/65(1)/109(1) of BNS and Sections 4, 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court rejected bail on 09.01.2026, noting the heinous nature of the offence and the accused's potential to hamper trial.

Accused Exploited The Victim's Trust — Court Finds It A Crucial Factor That She Called Him 'Dadu' And Had No Reason To Fear Him

Justice Purkayastha opened his analysis by noting a disturbing dimension of this case that made it different from ordinary POCSO matters — the abuse of trust. The Court observed that since the victim knew the accused for a long time and called him 'Dadu', "she had some sort of trust on him." It was precisely this trust that the accused weaponised to take her inside an abandoned hut. The Court found that the prosecution materials prima facie established that he "took her inside one abandoned hut, molested her, throttled her and put poison in her mouth." This observation carried weight because it established not merely a crime but a calculated exploitation of a child's innocence and trust in an elder.

Forensic Evidence Prima Facie Establishes Poisoning — "SFSL Report Has Also Prima Facie Established The Presence Of Organophosphorus In Her Stomach"

On the medical and forensic evidence, the Court independently evaluated two streams. First, the Medical Officer's findings of a ligature mark on the victim's neck — corroborating the throttling allegation. Second, and more critically, the Court held that "the SFSL report has also prima facie established the presence of Organophosphorus in her stomach," giving independent scientific credence to the allegation of deliberate poisoning. This is a significant observation for practitioners — the Court treated the forensic report as sufficient prima facie material even at the bail stage, without waiting for cross-examination of the expert.

AIIMS Records Not Part Of Chargesheet — Court Says It Does Not Matter; "Still The Accusations Are Very Serious And Grave In Nature"

A sharp procedural argument was raised by the defence — that the medical records from AIIMS, showing the victim's treatment for acute liver failure due to rodenticide poisoning, could not be considered as they were not part of the chargesheet. The Court acknowledged the investigative lapse, noting that "the IO did not collect the documents of treatment of the victim receiving outside the State, during the period of investigation." However, in a ruling important for both prosecutors and defence advocates, the Court held that this lapse did not determine the outcome: "Even if the documents which were submitted from the side of the informant regarding her treatment in AIIMS are not taken into consideration as same are not part of the chargesheet, still the accusations are very serious and grave in nature." The lesson for advocates is clear — even where investigation is incomplete, the chargesheet materials themselves must be examined on their own strength.

"Being A Poor Fish-Seller" Cannot Be The Yardstick For Bail When The Crime Itself Is Heinous — Court Lays Down Crucial Principle

The most legally significant ruling in this judgment came in response to the defence's chief argument — that since the accused was a poor fish-seller, he lacked the means or influence to tamper with witnesses and therefore deserved bail. The Court decisively rejected this reasoning, ruling that the risk of witness tampering and absconding cannot be the only lens through which a bail application is examined. "The chance of absconding or influencing witnesses are not the sole criteria to consider the bail application. The gravity and heinousness of the offence and punishment prescribed therefore are also relevant to decide the bail application," the Court declared. This principle is significant for practitioners because it reinforces that courts must give independent weight to the nature of the crime itself — separate from the personal circumstances of the accused — when deciding bail in grave offences.

Applying the settled bail principles from Mahendra Singh vs. Deepak and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2022) — that "more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail" — and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 — that bail discretion must be exercised "judiciously, cautiously and strictly" — the Court held that bail granted mechanically without adverting to these factors would be illegal. It also noted the witness protection jurisprudence in Ramesh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 1 SCC 529, acknowledging that victims of sexual offences are "a section of society consisting of very vulnerable people" under constant fear.

Justice Purkayastha held: "Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations as well as the mode and manner of commission of alleged offences and the materials collected by the IO, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage to the accused person." The bail application was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 02.03.2026