Bail in POCSO Cases Requires Holistic Consideration of Child Victim's Testimony: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted to Accused Based on Misreading of Medical and Video Evidence

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Xxxx vs State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. (with State vs Lalit Kumar)

Citation: CRL.M.C. 3956/2026 & CRL.M.C. 3966/2026

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar (Vacation Judge)

Date of Judgment: 29th June, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Law, Bail Jurisprudence, POCSO Act, Protection of Child Victims

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court set aside the regular bail granted to a school caretaker accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three-year-old girl, directing him to surrender before the Trial Court. The Trial Court had granted bail primarily on the grounds that CCTV footage showed the accused leaving the Junior Wing at 8:37 AM, that the victim's MLC showed no external injuries, and that custodial interrogation was no longer required. The High Court held that the Trial Court failed to consider crucial factors: the victim's tender age (3 years), the fact that only two male staff were present in the Junior Wing, the victim's consistent identification of the accused and the place of occurrence, and the ongoing investigation with forensic reports awaited. The Court held that medical evidence showing no injuries does not negate the offence, as penetrative assault can occur without causing visible injuries. The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the respondent, noting that case involved a mature victim and was at a later stage of trial. The Court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in X Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that absence of medical corroboration cannot be the sole basis for granting bail in POCSO cases.

3. Relevant Facts

The Incident

• The victim, a 3-year-old girl, was enrolled in Nursery class at a Junior School in Janak Puri, Delhi on 28.04.2026.

• The school had approximately 34 students and 10 staff members—six female teachers, two female maids, one guard (Gopal), and the respondent (Caretaker/Upper Division Clerk).

• The respondent was one of only two male persons posted in the Junior Wing.

• On 30.04.2026, the child attended school for only the second time and was dropped by her mother at about 8:00 AM.

• The mother requested the teacher to send the child home early as she was unwell.

Disclosure by the Child

• At about 4:00 PM on 30.04.2026, after returning from school and waking from sleep, the child started crying and pointed to her private part, complaining of severe pain.

• The child disclosed to her mother that a "bada sa ladka" (big boy) at school had taken her downstairs and touched her finger in her private part, causing pain and bleeding.

Registration of FIR

• On the intervening night of 30.04.2026/01.05.2026, the mother informed the police by calling Emergency Number 112.

• FIR No. 104/2026 was registered at PS Janakpuri on 01.05.2026 at 8:15 AM under Section 64(1) BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act.

Identification

• On 01.05.2026 at about 6:30

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.