Material Contradictions In Victim Statements Justify Bail in POCSO Case: RJ HC

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to two young men accused of rape and circulating obscene photographs, ruling that material inconsistencies in a victim's successive statements and the absence of medical corroboration cast significant doubt on the prosecution's case. The Bench emphasized that continued incarceration of young adults during a lengthy trial, especially when no incriminating electronic evidence was recovered despite allegations of digital defamation, could adversely impact their physical and mental well-being.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit heard the applications filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S.. The Rajasthan High Court scrutinized the evolution of the prosecution's narrative, noting that the accused were not named in the initial police statements or the medico-legal reports, appearing only in a later supplementary statement.

Key Takeaways

Reliability of Successive Statements

The Rajasthan High Court highlighted that material contradictions between a victim's initial statement under Section 180 and Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. versus later supplementary statements can be a pivotal factor for granting bail.

Necessity of Medical Corroboration

In cases of alleged sexual assault, the absence of injuries or medical circumstances suggestive of force in the Medico-Legal Examination Report weakens the prima facie case for continued detention.

Impact of Incarceration on Young Adults

The judiciary takes into account the age of the accused (20-21 years) and the potential adverse effects of prolonged jail time on their physical and mental health when the trial is expected to be lengthy.

Lack of Incriminating Electronic Evidence

Where allegations involve the viral circulation of obscene media, the failure of investigating agencies to recover such electronic evidence supports the case for bail.

Court Scrutinizes Contradictory Testimonies

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the victim initially filed a missing person report and subsequently recorded statements that solely implicated another individual, not the current applicants. It was only after a significant delay that the applicants were named in a supplementary statement. The Bench highlighted that "In her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., victim-K neither named the present applicants nor attributed any allegation whatsoever to them. Furthermore, the allegations of rape levelled against present applicants by the victim-K are not prima facie corroborated with the medical report, as the medical report by itself, does not indicate any injury or other medical circumstance suggestive of sexual assault."

Regarding the allegations of digital harassment, the Rajasthan High Court noted that “the record prima facie reveals that though an allegation of threat extended by the applicants that they would make obscene videos and viral the same has been levelled, however, no such objectionable or obscene photographs, videos or other incriminating electronic evidence have been recovered by the Investigating Agency.”

Ratio

A material contradiction between the initial statements of a victim recorded under procedural law and subsequent supplementary statements, combined with a lack of medical corroboration and a failure to recover alleged electronic evidence, constitutes sufficient grounds to enlarge an accused on bail, particularly when the accused are young adults and the trial is likely to be protracted.

Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 14, 2026, initially reported as a missing person case concerning the complainant's daughter. While the victim originally alleged she was assaulted in Gujarat by one Mahendra Gohil, she later introduced allegations against the petitioners, Prem Singh and Virendra @ Ravi, in a supplementary statement on March 31, 2026. The accused were charged under Sections 137(2), 64(1), and 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Counsel for the applicants argued that the allegations were an afterthought and that the medical reports showed no signs of force. The State and complainant opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of offences under the POCSO Act. However, the Rajasthan High Court found that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, making continued incarceration unnecessary.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10857/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:48927
Case Title: Prem Singh @ Prem Singh Tak v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sushil Kumar Prajapati, Mr. Ramniwas Sankhla
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sonu Manawat (P.P.), Mr. Ramdeen Choudhary (for complainant)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 25990