Alcoholism and Family Harassment Alone Cannot Justify POCSO Allegations: Bombay HC [Read Order]

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, observing that material improvements and contradictions between the FIR and the statements of the complainant-mother and the victim, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, raised doubt on the prosecution case. 

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, applying only a prima facie test at the bail stage, held that while the applicant may be an alcoholic who harasses his family, that “cannot, by themselves, justify the levelling of serious allegations against him merely to teach him a lesson”.

The Court was hearing Bail Application No. 3156 of 2026 under Section 483 of the BNSS, in connection with a case registered on 31.10.2025 under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 75, 76 and 351(2) BNS and Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The applicant, aged 36, had been in custody since 31.10.2025, for 11 months and 14 days, after the Special Court, Malegaon, rejected his bail on 07.05.2026. The chargesheet has been filed, and the victim is 15 years and 5 months old.

The prosecution’s case, as the Court recorded it, is that the applicant, an alcoholic, often assaulted family members, and after the complainant filed a complaint on 25.10.2025 over an assault on 21.10.2025, the victim, on the day the police left after investigating that complaint, disclosed to her mother that she had been assaulted by the applicant on two occasions, which she had not disclosed earlier because of threats. The FIR was lodged on 31.10.2025.

Advocate Kuldeep Nikam, for the applicant, argued that the case was false and fabricated, that the complainant filed it to teach him a lesson after a quarrel, that there were contradictions in the victim’s statements and a variance between the complaint and the complainant’s Section 164 statement, and that the medical report showed no injuries corroborating the allegation. APP Yogesh M. Nakhwa opposed the plea, citing the gravity of the offence, the victim’s minority, the trauma and stigma that explain delay, and a reasonable apprehension that the applicant may influence the victim and witnesses. Advocate Laurel Menezes, appointed through Legal Aid for the victim, supported the State.

The Court compared the statements on record. It noted that the complainant’s Section 164 statement described facts, including a broom assault when she questioned the applicant, that are absent from the FIR. It found the victim’s first statement of 01.11.2025 inconsistent with her later Section 164 statement of 07.11.2025: she had first placed the second incident about 15 days after the first, but later put it at 2-3 days after.

The Court also found that the complainant’s Section 164 statement put the interval at eight days. It noted that the statements of the complainant’s father, brother, brother-in-law and father-in-law were from “interested witnesses” who narrated “similar hearsay material”, and that they too put the interval at 15 days, contrary to the victim’s version. It further found that the complainant and the victim, in earlier statements, said the incidents had not been disclosed to anyone out of fear, whereas their later statements said they had been disclosed immediately after they occurred.

The Court concluded that:

“From the above there exists a clear dichotomy and improvement in the Section 164 statement. This is a clearly material circumstance which carries doubt and suspicion attached to the subsequent narrative. In my opinion, the case against the Applicant appears to have been fabricated with the intention of teaching him a lesson.”

The Court held that such an approach would be “contrary to the principles of fairness and human conscience”, and that material improvements and contradictions in the later statements of both the complainant and the victim incline it, “at the threshold”, to disbelieve the prosecution case. It added that the applicant’s complicity would be proved at trial.

Bail was granted on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount. The applicant must report to the Investigating Officer once a month, attend trial on all dates without unnecessary adjournments, not leave Maharashtra without the Trial Court’s permission, not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and keep the Investigating Officer informed of his address and mobile number. Any breach will entail cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations are limited to bail and are not on merits, and that the trial will be decided strictly on the evidence led. It appreciated the assistance of Ms. Menezes and directed that her fees be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority.

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, with Mr. Om N. Latpate and Mr. Samadhan Ghumare, Advocates.

For Respondent No. 1 (State): Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP.

For Respondent No. 2 (Victim): Ms. Laurel Menezes, Advocate (appointed through Legal Aid).

Case Title: Ganesh Kailas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 3156 of 2026, 2026:BHC-AS:42375

[Read Order]