Victim's Court Testimony Sufficient to Deny Bail in POCSO Case, Punjab and Haryana HC Holds

Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed a regular bail petition, holding that the minor victim's consistent court testimony carried substantial evidentiary weight and that absent medical evidence of penetrative assault was not a standalone ground for bail.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed a regular bail petition filed by Diljit Singh @ Diljeet Singh, who was arrested on 16 February 2025 in connection with FIR No. 22 of 2025 registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala. The charges arise under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 127(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, held that the victim — a minor child — had appeared before the trial court and consistently attributed the offence to the petitioner, and that this testimony constituted substantive evidence carrying considerable weight at the bail stage. The absence of medical evidence reflecting penetrative assault could not, the court held, be made the sole basis for granting bail.

Prosecution Case and Arrest

According to the prosecution case as set out in the petition, the petitioner allegedly enticed the minor victim to accompany him to a secluded place on a false pretext and thereafter committed sexual assault upon him. Following the incident, the victim was allegedly threatened with dire consequences if he disclosed the matter to anyone. Due to fear, the victim remained silent for some time before the matter eventually came to the complainant's knowledge, leading to registration of the FIR on 16 February 2025.

During investigation, the victim was medically examined, his statement was recorded before the competent authority, and other evidence was collected. The challan was presented before the competent court of jurisdiction on 5 May 2025. By the time the bail petition was heard, 14 out of 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined, including the victim, the complainant, and witnesses associated with the medical evidence.

Petitioner's Case for Bail

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Inder Preet Singh, argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and had no connection with the alleged offence. He placed particular emphasis on the medical evidence, contending that it did not reflect any penetrative assault and therefore did not corroborate the FIR allegations, rendering the prosecution version highly doubtful. Counsel further submitted that no corroborative evidence existed to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.

On the question of custody, it was pointed out that the petitioner had been in custody since 16 February 2025 — a considerable period — and that with 14 of 25 witnesses already examined, including the victim and the medical witnesses, the apprehension of witness tampering had been substantially allayed. The petitioner also offered to comply with all conditions the court might impose, including not leaving the country without prior permission.

State's Opposition

Additional Advocate General Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind opposed the petition on behalf of the State of Punjab. He argued that the allegations were grave and heinous in nature, that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR, and that his attributed role had remained consistent throughout the investigation. The State pointed out that the victim had already appeared before the trial court and had fully supported the prosecution case.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Goel began by noting the framework a court must apply when considering bail in matters involving sexual offences against minors. The court observed that sexual violence against a minor is not only grave in itself but has lasting physical, emotional and mental consequences on the victim's growth and development. Bail applications in such matters, the court said, require due care and precaution.

Turning to the facts, the court found that the allegations of sexual assault upon a minor child were “indubitably serious” and that the petitioner had allegedly lured the victim to a secluded place before committing the offence. On the medical evidence argument, the court was direct: the absence of medical findings confirming penetrative assault “does not persuade this Court as the same cannot be made the sole basis for the grant of bail at this stage.”

The factor that weighed most heavily with the court was the victim's testimony before the trial court. The victim had specifically attributed the commission of the offence to the petitioner and had remained consistent regarding the manner of occurrence. The court held that this testimony constituted substantive evidence carrying substantial evidentiary value at the bail stage.

The court clarified that the interplay between the medical evidence and the prosecution case — including the question of whether the absence of evidence of penetrative assault weakened the case — was a matter requiring detailed appreciation during the course of trial. It was not a ground to grant bail at this stage. The nature of the allegations, the victim's age, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the victim's testimony together indicated, prima facie, the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence.

Outcome

Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed CRM-M-35567-2026 on 21 July 2026, holding the petition to be devoid of merits. The court recorded that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

The court added a standard caveat that observations made in the order and submissions noted therein shall not affect the merits of the case, and that the investigating agency and the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the order.