The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of a law student accused of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl, underscoring the gravity of the allegations and the need for sensitive handling of child abuse cases.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, presiding over the case, denied bail to Suraj Kumar alias Vishwapratap Singh, who faces charges under Sections 65(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The accused, in judicial custody since September 6, 2024, had sought bail citing inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the absence of medical evidence confirming forced sexual assault.

On September 5, 2024, the father of the minor girl filed an FIR, alleging that he caught the accused inside a locked room in his house, assaulting his daughter. According to the prosecution, the father, while searching for his daughter early in the morning, found her in a room with the accused, who allegedly fled upon being confronted. The child later disclosed the events to her family, prompting legal action.

The defense argued that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 17 hours, raising doubts about the credibility of the allegations. It further contended that while the father claimed to have witnessed rape, the minor’s statements only described molestation. The defense also asserted that the absence of penetration negated the charge of rape.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the victim was a minor and her father was an eyewitness. The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Attorney General for India vs. Satish and Another (2021), asserting that penetration is not a necessary element to establish the offense of rape. The AGA further cited Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which places the burden of proving innocence on the accused in such cases.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

Rejecting the defense's contention regarding penetration, the High Court noted that under Section 63 of BNS, rape is not solely defined by penetration. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra alias Golu (2022), the court reaffirmed that even an attempt to commit a crime is punishable.

"Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that there was no penetration, the applicant is still liable under Section 65(2) BNS as the victim is below 12 years of age," the court stated.

Addressing the victim's statements, the court observed that in her depositions under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, she clearly narrated that the accused forcibly took her to another room, locked it, and committed a wrongful act.

"Every person has a different way of expressing their thoughts and emotions in their local language. The victim’s statements clearly indicate a sexual offense in common parlance," the court noted.

On the issue of medical evidence, the court remarked that forensic analysis was still pending and could not be disregarded at this stage.

The court further emphasized that minors are unlikely to falsely implicate someone in such serious allegations.

"While evaluating the prosecutrix’s testimony, courts must consider societal values, especially in rural India. It is highly improbable for a minor girl to fabricate claims of sexual assault merely to implicate an innocent person. In our country, a victim of such aggression would more likely remain silent than falsely accuse someone," the court remarked.

It added, "A rape victim's statement is an extremely humiliating experience. Unless she has truly suffered, she would not falsely blame anyone."

Accordingly, the court dismissed the bail application, clarifying that these observations were restricted to the bail proceedings and would not influence the trial court’s final verdict.