Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in POCSO Case, Citing Conflicting Testimonies and Lack of Forensic Corroboration

The Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, highlighting significant contradictions in the victim’s statements and the absence of corroborative forensic evidence.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while allowing the anticipatory bail application, observed, “There are conflicting statements of the prosecutrix at this stage... forensic evidence is not supporting the version of the prosecutrix.”

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety of the like amount, and also imposed conditions restraining him from contacting or intimidating the prosecutrix or her family.

The case arose from an FIR registered in September 2023 under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The initial allegation made by the 10-year-old prosecutrix was against her father, whom she accused of sexually assaulting her on the night of 2 September 2023.

Her medical examination and initial statement under Section 164 CrPC were consistent with this version, and a chargesheet was filed against her father, who was later granted bail.

However, in October 2023, the prosecutrix’s mother submitted an application stating that her daughter had, under threat, initially concealed the identity of the real offender, a neighbour and local barber, identified as the present petitioner.

Following this, the child gave a revised statement under Section 164 CrPC, alleging that the petitioner sexually assaulted her in winter 2022 when she had stepped out to urinate.

The Court took note of the conflicting narratives regarding both the identity of the accused and the date of the alleged offence.

The discrepancies, particularly the shift in the accused person’s identity and the year of the incident, were considered material. Moreover, the forensic report failed to detect any male DNA profile from the victim's samples, further weakening the prosecution’s case at the pre-trial stage.

Emphasizing that it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of the allegations at this stage, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant the petitioner protection from arrest, given the evidentiary gaps and his cooperation with the investigation thus far.

Case Title: Monti v. NCT of Delhi