Jammu, May 19, 2025: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that mere reliance on a medical opinion suggesting absence of recent sexual intercourse is not sufficient ground to justify grant of bail in serious cases involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The observation came in a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti while dismissing the bail pleas of two accused in a case involving the alleged abduction and sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl.
The defence had argued that medical examination conducted on the minor victim the day after the alleged incident did not reveal signs of recent intercourse and, therefore, the accused deserved to be released on bail. Rejecting the argument, the Court noted:
“Just by mere exploit of the fact that the medical evidence/opinion on record is purportedly ruling out recent sexual intercourse upon the victim-minor girl may not be a weighty reason in itself available at the end of the petitioners to claim that they deserve grant of bail in their favour.”
Justice Bharti emphasized that the seriousness of the charges, including offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act — which carry a minimum sentence of 20 years — cannot be overlooked merely because the medical report does not confirm recent sexual activity. The Court also cautioned that interpreting the medical evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the outcome of the trial.
The judgment reflects the judiciary’s broader approach that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, medical findings are only one component of the evidentiary matrix, and cannot alone override the gravity of allegations or the victim’s testimony.
The High Court also directed the trial court to expedite proceedings by summoning remaining prosecution witnesses without delay, ensuring the trial concludes swiftly without undue hardship to either side.