Serious Allegations Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail When Prosecution’s Case Has Prima Facie Weaknesses: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Father Accused Under POCSO Act

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), emphasizing that "delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case create serious doubts at the prima facie stage."

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while deciding the bail application of Ghanshyam Maruti Chougule, who was charged under Sections 376(2)(i), 376, and 506 of the IPC, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, observed that the prosecution’s case was fraught with gaps, including the "unexplained 11-month delay in lodging the FIR and the victim’s refusal to undergo medical examination."

The FIR, lodged on April 12, 2024, alleged that the accused had committed digital penetration upon his daughter in May 2023 while she was residing with him. However, the High Court found multiple periods of unexplained delay in reporting the alleged crime, questioning how the victim, despite allegedly experiencing such a traumatic event, neither informed her mother nor exhibited any behavioral changes for several months. The Court noted, "Although delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal by itself, in the present case, the circumstances leading to the delay do not appear cogent. The timeline raises serious doubts."

The Court was also critical of the fact that the victim refused to undergo a medical examination, stating, "Had she undergone the assessment, the prosecution would have had some opportunity to gather vital evidence. In a case already weakened by procedural delays, the refusal to undergo a medical examination adds to the lacunae in the prosecution’s case."

The prosecution relied on a PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) diagnosis to justify the delay in reporting. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing, observing, "It is surprising that the victim, despite living in a safe environment for several months, did not exhibit any psychological symptoms until June 2024—two months after the FIR was filed." The Court further remarked, "Until June 2024, the victim was virtually unaffected by the alleged incident. The sudden emergence of PTSD symptoms raises concerns about the sequence of events as narrated by the prosecution."

Rejecting the prosecution’s contention that the gravity of the offence should override procedural lapses, the Court emphasized, "While the allegations are serious, bail cannot be denied solely on the nature of the crime. The presumption of innocence remains unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Granting bail to the accused, the Court imposed stringent conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Clarifying that these observations were limited to the bail stage, the Court stated, "These findings should not be construed as observations on the merits of the case."

This ruling underscores the principle that "delays in reporting, lack of corroborative medical evidence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case must be carefully scrutinized before denying bail."

Date of decision: 06/02/2025