At the stage of bail, any serious dispute or discrepancy regarding the victim's age in records must enure to the benefit of the accused, particularly when combined with evidence of consensual association and prolonged custody.

Order

1. Present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-applicant, who was arrested on 24.03.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then, in connection with FIR No. 63/2025 registered at Police Station Gogameri, District Hanumangarh, for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 87 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), as well as Sections 4(1), 5(i) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, and Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, in fact, the victim was in contact with applicant and remained in continuous communication with him through Instagram. It is further submitted that this fact has been specifically admitted by the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS.

2.1 Learned counsel further submits that victim had accompanied the applicant voluntarily and stayed with him at Bhadra for one day and thereafter in Haryana for several days, without raising any objection at any point of time. It is contended that the FIR came to be lodged only after her return to home, wherein allegations under the POCSO Act have been levelled against the accused-applicant.

2.2 It was further contended that although the victim has been treated as a minor, it is evident from the order dated 28.08.2025, whereby the bail application of applicant was rejected, that in the SR Register the date of birth of the victim is recorded inconsistently, being mentioned in words as “1.04.2000”, whereas in figures it is recorded as “01.04.2007”. Despite this apparent discrepancy, the Investigating Agency has proceeded to charge the applicant for offences punishable under the POCSO Act.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix is a minor and was forcibly taken away by applicant. It is, therefore, contended that the present case is not a fit one for grant of bail to the accused-applicant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that it has been specifically admitted by victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS that she have had prior acquaintance with applicant, and the material on record further indicates that she remained in his company for several days, stayed with him in Bhadra and thereafter in Haryana without raising any objection or complaint. Such conduct, prima facie, reflects a degree of voluntariness in her actions and suggests the existence of consensual association.

5.1 The record further reveals that the age of prosecutrix has been determined solely on the basis of a school certificate, wherein her date of birth is recorded as “01.04.2007”. However, it has been noted in order dated 28.08.2025 that there exists a discrepancy in the date of birth as recorded in words and in figures. Such inconsistency in the age of the prosecutrix can conclusively be determined only during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence.

5.2 Further, the medical report of the victim does not conclusively determine her age, however, it records that no external injuries, scratch marks, or blood stains were found on her body at the time of examination. The relevant portion of the said medical report is reproduced herein below:

“No any external injury, abrasion, scratch mark, blo