01 August 2025 POCSO >> Criminal Law   |   Rape >> Criminal Law  

The prosecution's case is based on a series of events starting on April 6, 2016, when the victim's father reported his daughter missing. A witness, Sunil, later informed the police he saw the victim with the applicant, her cousin, on the day of the disappearance. The next day, the girl's body was found, identified by her father, and a post-mortem confirmed strangulation as the cause of death. The applicant was later arrested after absconding. DNA analysis of the victim's vaginal swab and the clothes of both the victim and the applicant reportedly matched the applicant. He has been charged with offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

 

 

The defense counsel argued that the applicant was falsely implicated due to media pressure, questioned the timing of the death in the post-mortem report, and pointed out that the applicant has been incarcerated for over nine years. In rebuttal, the prosecution highlighted that the trial is ongoing with four of 20 witnesses examined, all of whom have supported the prosecution. The prosecution also emphasized the DNA evidence and the testimony of the last-seen witness, Sunil. The complainant's counsel added that Sunil had been threatened by the applicant's family.

The court, while acknowledging the long period of incarceration, ruled that it is not the sole basis for granting bail. It focused on the gravity of the alleged crime—the rape and murder of a child by her cousin, which involved a breach of trust. The court also noted the severe potential penalties for the offenses, which include life imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life under the POCSO Act and the possibility of a death sentence under the IPC. Given these circumstances, the court found it was not an appropriate case to grant bail and, therefore, dismissed the application.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Indian Penal Code, 1860