Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case After Witnesses Turn Hostile

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to a petitioner after observing that all material witnesses, including the prosecutrix, failed to support the prosecution's case in a matter involving sexual offence allegations.

Justice Mandeep Pannu, presiding as a single-judge bench, considered a petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail. The petitioner was embroiled in a case involving serious allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court evaluated whether the continued incarceration of the accused was necessary given the dramatic turn in the evidentiary landscape during the trial.

Material Witnesses Fail to Identify Accused

The Court observed that the prosecutrix, who had previously alleged penetrative sexual assault, completely retracted her statements during her examination before the trial court. The bench noted that she not only denied the allegations but also failed to identify the petitioner during a video conferencing session. This development, coupled with similar hostile testimonies from other material witnesses, formed the crux of the Court's decision to lean towards the liberty of the accused.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the aforesaid circumstances, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the testimony of the material witnesses already examined is substantially diminished. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 21.08.2025, and the trial is likely to take some more time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period."

The Court has the following directions:

"The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case."

Background:

Allegations of Enticement and Assault

The dispute originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Mujessar, District Faridabad, based on allegations that the petitioner, a taxi driver, had enticed a 17-year-old girl and took her to a room in Gurugram where he allegedly committed sexual assault. It was further alleged that the accused threatened to leak photographs of the victim to ensure her silence. The prosecution relied on the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the victim had initially supported the allegations.

The Trial and Hostile Testimonies

During the trial, the defense argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The prosecutrix (PW-1) testified that nothing wrong had happened to her and claimed her prior statements were made under police pressure. The complainant (the victim's mother) and Gaurav Kumar (the owner of the premises where the alleged act occurred) also turned hostile. The State opposed the bail, pointing to the gravity of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 charges and the initial Section 164 statement. However, the High Court held that since the material witnesses had already deposed and failed to support the State, the risk of the petitioner influencing the trial was no longer a valid ground for detention. Consequently, the petition was allowed.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-32754-2026 (O&M)
NeutralCitation: 2026:PHHC:088713
Case Title: VIVEK ALIAS VIVEK KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG, Haryana

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 125