Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO Case, Citing Victims Statements

New Delhi, October 7 (Daily Kiran) : The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 20-year-old man accused under the POCSO Act, emphasizing the significance of his relationship with the 14-year-old victim and her initial statements. The victim had stated that she left home of her own accord and had no complaints against anyone.

Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that documents presented in court illustrate a close and affectionate relationship between the accused and the victim. The victim had even shared photographs of them together on Instagram, expressing her feelings for him.

The court remarked, “Neither the age of the accused nor that of the victim can be overlooked. The records demonstrate a close bond. Furthermore, the victim’s initial statement clearly indicated that she left home voluntarily and had no grievances. These facts are critical in favor of granting bail.”

This ruling comes during the hearing of the accused, Vicky’s, third regular bail application. He has been in judicial custody for over three years following an FIR lodged at Aman Vihar police station in July 2023.

The case began when the victim’s father filed a missing persons report, stating that his minor daughter did not return home after leaving for school on July 28, 2023. She was later found and brought to the police station on July 30.

The High Court‘s order mentioned that during counseling at the police station, the victim disclosed that she had left home due to a disagreement with her mother and went to her aunt’s house. She reiterated that she had no complaints and that nothing wrong had happened to her.

However, in a subsequent statement, the victim alleged that the accused had kept her against her will and sexually assaulted her, leading to the addition of sexual offense charges under the POCSO Act in the FIR.

The court noted that at the time of the incident, the victim was 14 years and 8 months old, while the accused was 20 years and 4 months old. It also acknowledged that they had been in a relationship for several months prior to the incident, with the victim posting multiple images of them together on Instagram.

The High Court considered the fact that the victim had provided different statements at various times during the proceedings. The accused’s lawyer argued that the couple had been in a public relationship for eight to nine months, which was known to others.

The defense also pointed out that the accused had already spent over three years in jail, had no criminal record, was a permanent resident of Delhi, and did not possess a passport.

Conversely, the prosecution opposed the bail request, asserting that the case involved a serious crime against a minor, where consent holds no significance under the POCSO Act. The complainant’s lawyer echoed this sentiment, highlighting the victim’s later allegations of sexual assault and the corroboration of witness statements.

The High Court observed that the accused had already spent more than three years in judicial custody, and the trial could take considerable time to conclude. It noted that there are 19 prosecution witnesses, of which only the victim and her father had testified so far.

The court also took into account forensic evidence, noting that a mixed DNA profile found on a blanket recovered from the crime scene matched both the accused and the victim. However, no male DNA profile was found on the victim’s cervical swab and smear.

Justice Pushkarna referenced a prior ruling regarding the factors considered in POCSO cases when granting bail, such as the ages of the accused and victim, their relationship, inconsistencies in statements, and the surrounding circumstances.

Given the current facts and circumstances, the court concluded that bail should be granted to the accused. The High Court instructed him to attend all hearings in the trial court and provide his permanent and current address to the investigating officer. He must also keep his mobile number active and report to the local police station every Monday at 9 AM.

Additionally, the court mandated that the accused must not attempt to influence, intimidate, or bribe any witnesses or tamper with evidence related to the case.

The High Court clarified that these observations were solely for the purpose of addressing the bail application and should not be construed as affecting the trial’s proceedings or the court’s opinion on the merits of the case.