Delhi High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case Citing Contradictory Victim Statements [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has 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 delivered the judgment on May 21, 2025, in a case registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act at PS Prem Nagar, involving FIR No. 498/2023.

The case presented a complex scenario where the victim, approximately ten years old at the time of the incident, initially accused her father of rape in September 2023. However, a month later, through her mother's application to the DCP Office, Rohini, the victim changed her statement, now alleging that she was actually assaulted by the petitioner, a neighborhood barber.

Justice Dudeja observed the conflicting nature of the victim's statements, noting, "It is thus evident that prosecutrix gave two totally conflicting versions. In the FIR as also before the doctor and in her first statement under Section 164 Cr. PC, she made allegations of rape against her father."

The court highlighted additional inconsistencies regarding the date of the alleged incident. Initially, the victim stated the incident occurred on the night of September 2, 2023, but in her supplementary statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, she claimed it happened during winter season in 2022.

A crucial factor in the court's decision was the forensic evidence. The court noted that "the vaginal swab and smear of the victim along with her underwear was sent to FSL. However, as per FSL result, no male DNA profile could be generated from the source of the exhibits. Thus, forensic evidence is not supporting the version of the prosecutrix."

The petitioner's counsel, Pardeep Kadiyan, argued that his client was not originally named in the FIR and that the accusations came as an afterthought following the victim's mother's instigation. He emphasized that the petitioner had already joined the investigation and had deep roots in society with no likelihood of absconding.

Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioner was not initially named due to fear, as he had allegedly threatened to kill the victim.

The case also involved a writ petition filed by the victim's mother seeking a denovo investigation, which led the High Court to direct that a supplementary statement of the victim be recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.

Granting anticipatory bail, Justice Dudeja directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the like amount, with conditions that he shall not contact or threaten the victim and her family members and shall join the investigation when required.

The court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application and should not be treated as an expression on the case's merits.

Mr. Pardeep Kadiyan, Advocate appeared for the petitioner Whereas Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP, Mr. Vivek Kumar Gaurav, Advocate appeared for the respondent.
Case Title: Monti vs. The State NCT of Delhi

[Read Judgment]