Supreme Court Grants Bail to Father in POCSO Case After Four Years of Custody: Balances Gravity with Prolonged Incarceration.


27 October 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   POCSO >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India, in an order passed recently, granted bail to a man charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and said that he had already spent more than four years in prison in contrast with a maximum punishment of seven years. The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order on October 27, 2025, in Rahul v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No. 3535 of 2025).

Petitioner Rahul had been arrested under Sections 354, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9(M)(N), 10, and 12 of the POCSO Act on a complaint of sexual acts committed against his minor daughter. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) had previously rejected bail, and Rahul then petitioned the Supreme Court via the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.


 

 

At the hearing, the petitioner's attorney contended that the charges were overstated and made with malice by the petitioner's divorced wife. It was alleged that the alleged acts were being misrepresented as assault, and that continued detention was excessive. The prosecution, however, did not agree to bail, citing seriousness of the charges and the petitioner's moral culpability as a parent.

The top court, taking into account the submissions, noted that while the alleged impropriety was sensitive in nature, the extended custody in excess of four years needed to be considered. The bench also referred to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which emphasizes both speed in trial and proportionality in pre-trial detention.

Observing that the victim now resides with her mother, and that the petitioner poses no immediate threat to her physical safety, the Court allowed the bail plea. The order directed the trial court to impose stringent conditions to prevent any contact with the victim or interference with evidence. The court clarified that any breach of these conditions would automatically justify bail cancellation.

In making this ruling, the Supreme Court reasserted a vital equipoise in criminal jurisprudence — that seriousness of charge should be balanced against inordinate delay in trial and the constitutional right of personal liberty.

The order therefore serves to be another reminder that the presumption of innocence still remains important even in situations where serious moral charges are made, especially where delays in trial push incarceration to the threshold of the statutory limit.


Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023