In a significant development, the High Court has granted bail to Adv. Yogesh Singh, who was incarcerated in connection with serious charges under IPC and the POCSO Act. The order brings attention to critical aspects of justice, particularly in cases involving alleged minors and the necessity of clear evidence.

Background of the Case

The applicant was charged under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC along with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. He had been in judicial custody since January 16, 2024. His bail plea was initially rejected by the trial court, which led to the present application being filed before the High Court.

Key Grounds for Granting Bail

The Court, while allowing the bail, took into consideration several compelling arguments that questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s claims:

• Disputed Age of the Victim: The defense successfully argued that the victim’s age had been manipulated in official records. The Court was convinced there were contradictions and no scientific age determination was conducted.

• Consensual Relationship: Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. revealed that the victim admitted to being in a consensual relationship and voluntarily eloped with the applicant due to familial discord.

• Delay in FIR Filing: The First Information Report was lodged a day after the alleged incident, which the Court noted as detrimental to the prosecution’s case in such sensitive matters.

• Lack of Medical Evidence: There was no substantial medical or forensic evidence provided to corroborate the charges of sexual assault.

• Applicant’s Conduct: Adv. Yogesh Singh had no prior criminal record and was deemed neither a flight risk nor a threat to witnesses or the trial process.

Court’s Directions

The Court granted bail with the following stipulations:

1. The applicant must not tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses.

2. He must appear at all trial dates unless specifically exempted.

3. The trial court must fix sureties reasonably, in line with the applicant’s socioeconomic status, without imposing arbitrary or onerous conditions.

Conclusion

The decision underscores the judiciary’s balanced approach in ensuring that the stringent provisions of the law are not misused. The case also highlights the importance of due process and the right of an accused to fair bail conditions in the absence of convincing proof of wrongdoing.

Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done — this order stands as a testament to that principle.