Court Cites Inconsistent Victim Statements and Lack of Corroborative Evidence as Key Factors in Decision
In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Umesh Mali, a 20-year-old accused in a controversial case involving charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bail application was heard by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, who emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's statements as pivotal in the decision to allow bail.
The case, registered as Crime No. 0035 of 2026 at Police Station Naseerabad in District Raebareli, was initiated following an FIR lodged by the 14-year-old victim. The victim alleged that Umesh Mali, along with another accused, Kuldeep Singh, had forcibly taken her to a secluded area and raped her. However, the medical examination report provided no evidence of physical injury or forced assault, as the hymen was intact and the victim's clothes were neither torn nor stained.
Justice Vidyarthi, while considering the bail application, noted that the victim's statements in subsequent legal proceedings were inconsistent with the initial FIR. Notably, the victim did not mention the presence of a co-accused during her medical examination and later claimed ignorance about the identity of the second person involved.
The court also took into account Umesh Mali's young age, lack of criminal history, and the absence of pathological examination reports from the case diary, which further weakened the prosecution's stance. Despite opposition from the Additional Government Advocate, who argued that charges had been established during the investigation, the court found the evidence insufficient to deny bail.
In line with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, the court acknowledged that the Special Juvenile Police Unit had informed the victim and her guardian about the bail application. However, they opted not to oppose the bail during the hearing.
The bail was granted with stringent conditions to ensure that the accused does not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. Umesh Mali is required to furnish a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or concerned court, and he must appear on all trial dates.
This case highlights the challenges in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect victims in sensitive cases, especially when evidence is not conclusive. The court's decision underscores the importance of consistent victim testimony and corroborative evidence in securing convictions under stringent laws like the POCSO Act.
Bottom line:-
Bail application under Sections 70(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 5 /6 of POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act - Court allowed bail considering lack of corroborative evidence in medico-legal report, victim's inconsistent statements, and applicant's young age with no criminal history.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 70(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 Rules 4(13) and (15).
Umesh Mali v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2925920
