Victim’s Immediate Outcry, Medical Evidence and Judicial Sensitivity Leave No Room for Bail: Bombay High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case

“Child Victims Must Not Be Revictimised by Judicial Leniency”: in a significant pronouncement, the Bombay High Court firmly denied bail to Mayur Raju Wankhede, accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old minor boy. Justice Amit Borkar, while rejecting the bail application in Bail Application No. 879 of 2025, delivered a strong judicial reaffirmation of child protection laws, stating:
“Where a prima facie case is established of sexual assault against a minor, the Court cannot ignore the lasting trauma caused to the victim merely because the investigation has concluded.”
This decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to prioritising the rights and dignity of minor victims under the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The case originated from Crime Register No.1017 of 2024 filed at Malawani Police Station, Mumbai. The victim, a 17-year-old boy, approached the police on the very day of the alleged incident, reporting that while fishing with a friend at Aksa Beach, he was forcibly taken to nearby bushes, sexually assaulted, and subjected to penetrative carnal intercourse against his will by an unknown man who later disclosed his identity as Mayur Wankhede.

Immediately after the incident, the victim informed his friend, his mother, and thereafter lodged a prompt First Information Report (FIR). The subsequent medical examination on the following day revealed clear signs of recent and forceful penetration, leading to the applicant’s arrest and the filing of the chargesheet under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Victim’s Prompt Complaint and Medical Evidence

Justice Borkar placed significant weight on the timeliness of the complaint and the corroborative medical evidence. He remarked:
“The credibility of the victim’s narrative gains strength from the prompt reporting of the offence, corroborated by medical examination indicating clear evidence of recent forceful sexual assault.”

Rejecting the defence argument about inconsistencies in the victim’s statement, the Court observed: “In cases involving minor victims, initial confusion in identifying an assailant is neither uncommon nor fatal to the prosecution. The law recognises the psychological trauma faced by child victims and accordingly tempers its evidentiary standards.”

On Non-Holding of Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The applicant’s counsel had argued that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, but the Court rejected this contention outright, stating:
“The absence of a TIP is not decisive in a scenario where the accused voluntarily disclosed his identity to the

victim and the victim consistently maintained the identity in successive statements, including before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.”

Significance of Consistency in Victim’s Statements

Justice Borkar, acknowledging the victim’s repeated and consistent narrations before the police and the Magistrate, observed:
“Consistency in a victim’s narration of the offence, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, forms a solid prima facie case. The purpose of bail is not to undermine the gravity of the offence by prematurely discrediting the victim’s consistent statements.”

Emphasis on the Nature of the Offence and Societal Interest

Rejecting the defence plea regarding possible false implication, the Court underscored the nature of the offence, stating: “Offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act reflect society’s zero tolerance towards crimes against children. Such allegations demand heightened judicial caution. Liberty of the accused is important, but societal interest in protecting minors from predatory conduct is paramount.”

The Court went on to hold: “In cases of child sexual abuse, bail cannot be granted merely because the investigation is over. The continuation of custody is justified when there is reasonable apprehension that the accused, if released, may influence or intimidate the minor victim.”

Why Bail Was Denied Despite Completion of Investigation

Justice Borkar decisively observed: “The completion of the investigation does not mitigate the serious possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or causing distress to the minor victim. Protection of the child’s right to fair adjudication outweighs any claim of liberty by the accused at this juncture.”

The Court noted that the allegations were corroborated on three critical counts—promptness in reporting, consistency in narration, and medical findings—and therefore, the threshold for bail under Section 439 CrPC was not met.

Summarising the reasoning, Justice Borkar concluded:
“Bail is a rule in ordinary criminal cases, but when allegations involve sexual assault on a minor, particularly under the POCSO Act, Courts must lean towards protecting the vulnerable victim. This Court finds no special circumstances to override the presumption in favour of continued custody of the accused.”

The bail application was accordingly rejected, with the Court directing that the trial shall proceed uninfluenced by observations in the bail order and conclude based on the evidence adduced.

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in Mayur Raju Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. marks a clear reinforcement of the principle that crimes against children attract stricter judicial scrutiny even at the bail stage. The Court’s message was unequivocal:
“In crimes targeting minors, the judiciary’s foremost duty is to ensure justice for the victim without the looming shadow of intimidation or coercion.”

Date of decision: 02 July 2025