High Court of Bombay at Goa Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO Case Due to Unexplained Delay in FIR and Lack of Prima Facie Evidence. The court held that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not automatically bar bail if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 01:56:47

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Seftin Raza Kosambi, was arrested in connection with an alleged sexual assault on a minor victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The FIR was lodged on 10th January 2025, alleging that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, a minor, on 31st December 2024. The appellant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. He then appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The primary legal issue was whether the appellant was entitled to bail given the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of a prima facie case. The appellant argued that the FIR was lodged after a 10-day delay without any explanation, and the victim's statements were inconsistent. The prosecution contended that the delay was due to the victim's trauma and that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act applied. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that the victim's initial statement did not mention the appellant, and the medical evidence did not support the allegations. The court held that the delay in filing the FIR was unexplained and that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 29 - Delay in FIR - The appellant sought bail for alleged sexual assault on a minor. The court considered the delay of 10 days in filing the FIR and the lack of corroborative evidence. Held that the delay was unexplained and the victim's statement was inconsistent, thus no prima facie case was made out. Bail granted. (Paras 1-18)

B) Evidence - Delay in FIR - POCSO Act - The court noted that the FIR was lodged 10 days after the alleged incident without any explanation for the delay. Held that such delay raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. (Paras 10-12)

C) POCSO Act - Section 29 Presumption - Bail - The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is rebuttable and does not automatically disentitle the accused to bail if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case. (Paras 14-16)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case under the POCSO Act, considering the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of a prima facie case.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court order, and granted bail to the appellant on certain conditions.

Law Points

Bail
Prima Facie Case
Delay in FIR
POCSO Act
Section 29 Presumption
Section 439 CrPC

Case Details

2026:BHC-GOA:722

Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2025

2026-04-06

Ashish S. Chavan, J.

2026:BHC-GOA:722

Mr Rohan Desai for Appellant, Mr Pravin Faldessai for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State, Ms Swati Kamat Wagh for Respondent No.3

Mr. Seftin Raza Kosambi

State of Goa, The Police Inspector, Margao Town Police Station, XXX (Victim)

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a case under the POCSO Act.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought bail from the High Court after the Sessions Court rejected his bail application.

Filing Reason

The appellant was arrested for alleged sexual assault on a minor victim under the POCSO Act.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Court rejected the appellant's bail application.

Issues

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC in a POCSO case where there is a delay in filing the FIR and lack of prima facie evidence. Whether the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act disentitles the appellant to bail.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the FIR was lodged after a 10-day delay without explanation, the victim's statements were inconsistent, and no prima facie case was made out. Prosecution argued that the delay was due to the victim's trauma, and the presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act applies, disentitling the appellant to bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that unexplained delay in filing the FIR and lack of corroborative evidence indicate no prima facie case, and the presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act is rebuttable and does not automatically bar bail.

Judgment Excerpts

The FIR was lodged after a delay of 10 days without any explanation. The victim's statement does not inspire confidence and is inconsistent. The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is rebuttable.

Procedural History

The appellant was arrested on 10th January 2025. He filed a bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. He then filed Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2025 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court reserved judgment on 1st April 2026 and pronounced it on 6th April 2026, allowing the appeal and granting bail.