POCSO | MP High Court Denies Bail As Case Remains Sustainable On Medical Evidence Despite Victim Turning Hostile

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of raping a 15-year-old girl after allegedly taking her from her parental home, holding that a victim turning hostile before the trial court does not erase the weight of medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari dismissed the bail application filed by Goutam Kolare, observing that the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) had corroborated the allegation of sexual assault even though the DNA report came back negative and the victim did not support the prosecution's version when examined at trial.

The case arose out of an FIR registered at Police Station Chandameta in Chhindwara district, under Sections 137(2), 96, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 363, 376(2) and 376(3) of IPC), along with Sections 3(a)/4 and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, the minor victim was reported missing on October 29, 2025, and a missing person's report was lodged the following day. She was traced and recovered on November 11, 2025, from Bhopal, where she was found in the company of the applicant. Kolare has been in judicial custody since November 14, 2025, and this was his first application seeking bail.

In her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Section 161 and 162 of CrPC), the victim had initially alleged that the applicant forcibly raped her after she left her parental home. The plea for her release was moved under Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC) before the High Court.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Sakshi Bhardwaj argued that Kolare was innocent and that the two knew each other well, with the victim having left home of her own volition out of "love and affection" for him. She pointed to the negative DNA report and stressed that the victim had since turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution's case when she deposed before the trial court. It was further submitted that the applicant, a permanent resident of Chhindwara, was not a flight risk and was fully willing to furnish surety and abide by conditions imposed by the court.

Government Advocate Alok Agnihotri opposed the plea on behalf of the State, submitting that although the victim had turned hostile, a conviction could still follow on the strength of the medical evidence. He pointed out that the victim was, admittedly, below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, bringing the case within the POCSO framework.

Examining the case diary, the court noted that the MLC report supported the prosecution's case despite the hostile turn in the victim's testimony and the negative DNA result. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, the bench observed that a prosecutrix turning hostile does not, by itself, "efface the evidence with regard to the sexual assault," and that courts must not allow prime witnesses turning hostile to become a ground for letting the case collapse. The order also cited the Apex Court's caution, drawn from the Sanjeev Nanda case, that criminal trials cannot be reduced to a "theatre of the absurd" merely through witnesses acting under pressure, inducement or intimidation, and that the presumption of innocence has to be balanced against the rights of the victim and societal interest in the rule of law, as also emphasised in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat.

The court further referred to Iqbal v. State of U.P. on the limited evidentiary value of identification evidence, though it found the corroborating medical evidence was sufficient to sustain the prosecution's version at this stage.

Holding that the facts and circumstances did not warrant the grant of bail, Justice Nirankari declined to release the applicant, and the miscellaneous criminal case was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Goutam Kolare vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: August 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari