Bail granted based on inconsistencies in victim's statements and need for evidence corroboration.

ORDER

14.08.2025 Heard M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. M.

Hussain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

This is an application by which the petitioners has prayed for bail in respect of Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 176/2025 registered under Section

65(1)/89/127(4) of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act .

The FIR dated 06.07.2025 lodged by the father of the victim reveals that the co-accused who is accused No. 1 in the FIR had forcible sexual relationship with his daughter and made her pregnant. It is further stated in the said FIR that petitioner No. 1 and 2 after the said pregnancy was revealed took the victim to the Kokrajhar Dholmara Public Health Center and by giving medicine prescribed by the doctor, terminated the pregnancy. It is also stated that during that period of time, the victim was missing. However, she was recovered later. On receipt of the said FIR the police registered the same under the aforesaid sections of the law.

Mr. M. Khan submits that the allegation against the petitioners are only that they had taken her to the doctor and terminated her pregnancy but he stated that the medical report with regard to the victim does not reflect the said incident. He further submits that the victim had registered another case in an earlier point of time which culminated in conviction of the accused person therein and as such he prays for bail.

Ms. N. Das submits by perusing the case dairy that the victim in her statement before the Magistrate as well as the police have consistently stated that her pregnancy was terminated after she was sexually assaulted by the co-

accsued i.e. accused No. 1 in the FIR.

Mr. M. Hussain for respondent No. 2 submits that there is evidence on record that both the petitioners have taken the victim to the doctor and her pregnancy was terminated. He also submits that the medical report from the concerned hospital where her pregnancy was terminated may be looked into.

I have heard the counsels and have perused the case diary.

It is a settled position of law that in POCSO cases, the statement of the witness should inspire the confidence of the court and in order to inspire the same, her statement has to be consistent before the authorities. It is seen that the victim had stated before the police authorities that both the petitioners had taken her to the doctor and terminated her pregnancy whereas before the Magistrate, she stated that it was petitioner No. 1 who had taken the victim to the doctor and got the pregnancy terminated. It seems there are difference in the statement of the victim and in that case corroboration is sought for which will be done during the trial of the said case.

In view of the same, the petitioners are released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) (each) with 2 (two) local sureties (each) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer under the following conditions:-

1) The petitioners will not approach the victim or influence the witnesses who are connected with the case.

2) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence.

3) The petitioners will not leave the jurisdictional area without the permission of the Investigating Officer.

The petition is disposed of.