Back
Systemic Attempt of Forcible Conversion Under Deep Coercion: Rejects Bail
Introduction
The
has dismissed a bail application in a POCSO case, observing that the evidence pointed to a
"
."
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, presiding over the matter, highlighted the presence of the applicant's DNA in the victim's vaginal swab and the recovery of a forged Aadhaar card as compelling reasons to deny bail to Tanveer, the accused.
Case Background
The applicant, Tanveer, was arrested on , following an FIR lodged by Jal Singh at , Haridwar. The FIR implicated Tanveer and a co-accused, Nazim, for offences under the , the , the , and the . The prosecution alleged that the victim, a minor, was subjected to sexual assault as part of a larger scheme involving forced religious conversion. During the investigation, a forged Aadhaar card in the name of "Bisara" was recovered, which the state argued linked the accused to a premeditated conversion plot.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the applicant, , argued that Tanveer was falsely implicated, pointing out that the victim had denied the allegations during her cross-examination before the trial court. He submitted that any relationship between the parties was entirely consensual and that the report found no spermatozoa in the vaginal swab. He also sought parity with co-accused Nazim, who had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench, and stressed that Tanveer had been in custody for over a year with no likelihood of a speedy trial.
Opposing bail, the state's counsel,
, countered that the victim's minority rendered any claim of consent legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act. He emphasized that the FSL report showed a mixed DNA sample from the vaginal swab matching both the victim's and the applicant's blood samples, providing
of physical contact. The state further contended that the forged Aadhaar card indicated a
"
"
and that
mandated a
against the accused.
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the applicant's argument based on the absence of spermatozoa, observing that
"absence of spermatozoa does not negate the sexual assault"
and that semen may lack spermatozoa due to medical conditions or the nature of the assault. Justice Thapliyal found that the presence of the applicant's DNA in the victim's vaginal swab provided
"
of physical contact."
The court also dismissed the plea of consent, reiterating that once the victim's age is established as a minor,
"any plea of consensual sexual relationship has no relevance"
under the POCSO Act.
Addressing the victim's hostile testimony, the court noted that a witness's denial cannot "wipe out scientific evidence" and that such hostility is a matter for final adjudication at trial, not a ground for bail where strong forensic evidence exists. The plea of parity with the co-accused was also rejected, as the court found the allegations against Tanveer to be "slightly different" given his active role in physical assault under the guise of conversion. The recovery of the forged Aadhaar card was deemed significant, indicating
"to what extent the applicant is involved in the commission of crime."
Key Observations
-
"
"
-
"
"
-
"
"
-
"
"
Court's Decision
Finding no good grounds to enlarge the applicant on bail, the dismissed the bail application. The court clarified that the trial court should proceed with the trial without being influenced by any observations made in the bail order. The decision reinforces that strong scientific evidence, particularly DNA proof, and indicators of systematic coercion can outweigh procedural defenses like hostile witnesses or parity claims in bail matters under the POCSO Act.
