Bail Rejected In POCSO Matter; Uttarakhand HC Stresses Speedy Trial And Limits On Adjournments

The High Court of Uttarakhand has refused to grant bail to a 71-year-old accused booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, holding that at the stage of considering bail the Court is only required to assess whether a prima facie case is made out and not to conduct a meticulous examination of contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

The Court further underscored that where the trial has already commenced, unnecessary adjournments should not be granted routinely and inconvenience of counsel cannot be treated as a valid ground to delay proceedings, directing the trial court to proceed expeditiously and preferably on a day-to-day basis.

Justice Alok Mahra, while dismissing the first bail application, observed that having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the statement of the victim recorded during investigation, and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses, the applicant did not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

The Court clarified that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it was not inclined to grant bail and requested the trial court to make every endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within three months, strictly adhering to the statutory mandate that once examination of witnesses begins, it should ordinarily continue from day to day unless special reasons are recorded in writing.

The case arises from an FIR dated 30.04.2025 registered at Police Station Mallital, District Nainital, alleging offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

As per the prosecution case, the minor victim was allegedly lured with Rs. 200 by the accused on 12.04.2025, taken inside a red car parked in his garage, threatened with a knife and subjected to sexual assault.

It was further alleged that the victim was threatened with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident, and that the matter came to light only after she informed her mother.

Seeking bail, the defence contended that there was an unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR and that the medical examination did not conclusively support the allegation of rape.

It was argued that no internal or external injuries were found and that CCTV footage did not show any red car being taken into the garage on the relevant date.

The applicant further submitted that the garage was filled with construction material and incapable of accommodating a vehicle. Reliance was also placed on the DNA examination, which according to the defence did not support the prosecution case.

The accused highlighted his age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, contending that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

The State opposed the bail plea, submitting that the victim’s statement recorded during investigation consistently supported the prosecution case.

It was pointed out that the medical examination conducted on 30.04.2025 noted injury marks on the neck of the victim and mild redness around the anal region, which, according to the prosecution, lent prima facie corroboration to the allegations.

The State further submitted that investigation revealed two separate incidents of sexual assault at different places, and separate site plans had been prepared.

It was also argued that the victim resides in the same locality as the accused and is under psychological distress, and that release on bail could result in intimidation or influence over witnesses, particularly given the socio-economic disparity between the parties.

After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the Court noted that the allegations relate to serious offences under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act.

It observed that while considering bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence in detail or examine contradictions as would be done during trial.

The limited consideration at this stage is whether a prima facie case emerges from the material collected during investigation.

The Court also took into account that the trial had already commenced and two prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating that the matter was at an advanced stage.

On these considerations, the Court concluded that in view of the gravity of the accusations, the victim’s consistent statement during investigation, and the apprehension of witness influence, it was not inclined to grant bail.

Emphasising the need for a fair and speedy trial, the Court directed the trial court to avoid routine adjournments when witnesses are present and to continue recording evidence on a day-to-day basis unless exceptional reasons are recorded, observing that unnecessary delay at such an advanced stage would defeat the object of expeditious justice.

The bail application was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Usman Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Bench: Justice Alok Mahra

Date of Judgment: 27.02.2026