A special Pocso court in Noida has rejected the bail application of a man accused of repeatedly raping and impregnating a minor, ruling that while the Allahabad High Court had previously granted him bail, that order pertained to relatively less grave offences.
Case Background
The applicant, a resident of Surajpur, was facing charges after an FIR was registered at Surajpur police station on September 13, 2025, a month after the minor went missing on August 18. The case was initially filed under BNS sections 137(2) (kidnapping), 65(1) (rape of a woman under 16), and Pocso Act Section 3/4 (penetrative sexual assault). On April 23, 2025, the Allahabad High Court granted him bail on these charges.
Additional Charges Filed
During the investigation, police added more serious charges under BNS Section 87 (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel marriage or illicit intercourse) and Pocso Act sections 5j(ii) (impregnation as a consequence of sexual assault) and 5l (repeated sexual assault). The accused then moved the Pocso court for bail on these new charges.
Arguments Presented
The defense counsel argued that the FIR was filed after a month-long delay and that the high court had already granted bail. They also claimed the accused was falsely implicated, as he was not named in the original FIR against unknown persons. However, the special public prosecutor informed the court that newer circumstances had emerged during the investigation, warranting additional sections.
Court's Observations
Additional Sessions Judge Abhishek Pandey examined the case diary, charge sheet, and other materials. The victim's date of birth was January 1, 2011, making her 14 at the time of the offence. The court relied on her statements recorded under BNSS sections 180 and 183.
In her Section 180 statement, the girl said she accompanied the accused, who then committed a wrong act. In her Section 183 statement, she clarified that the accused threatened her, took her to Bihar, forcibly established a physical relationship, left her pregnant, and confined her.
The court observed that the high court's earlier bail order was for relatively minor offences compared to the newer sections. "At this stage, there does not appear any reason to disbelieve the statement given by the victim on oath before the magistrate's court," the court held.
Bail Rejected
Finding no sufficient ground to release the accused, the court rejected the bail application. "Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, this court, without touching on the merits of the case, does not find it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail in this second bail application," it said.
