Court holds that presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is not absolute; bail granted amid serious doubts on prosecution's case and medico-legal evidence
In a significant judgment delivered on October 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Devesh Ravindra Sawant, a 26-year-old accused charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The case involved allegations of repeated sexual relations with a 14-year-old victim, who was also a party to a purported love relationship with the accused.
The Court scrutinized the prosecution's case, observing that the victim herself admitted a consensual love relationship with the accused extending over five and a half months, including after an alleged breakup. The First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim's mother narrated incidents occurring in a house owned by a friend of the accused. However, an independent witness-the owner of that house-stated that the property had been under renovation and uninhabitable for four years, rendering the prosecution's version questionable.
Further, the Court examined the victim's grandfather's statement, which contradicted both the victim's account and the independent witness's testimony, casting further doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Importantly, the medico-legal history provided did not support the allegations made by the prosecution.
Addressing the legal presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act-which mandates that the court presume commission of the offence unless contrary is proved-the Court clarified that this presumption is not absolute. It applies only when foundational facts supporting the accusation are prima facie established. The judgment cited the Kerala High Court decision in Joy v. State of Kerala, emphasizing that courts must guard against applying such presumptions without critical scrutiny of the evidence to avoid miscarriage of justice at the bail stage.
The Court also referred to previous case law, including Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, which highlighted the importance of considering the accused's right to bail, especially where the victim is a minor engaged in a consensual relationship and where there are material contradictions in the prosecution's case.
The Court expressed concern over the prosecution's habitual opposition to bail pleas in POCSO cases despite frequent trial delays, urging a change in prosecutorial attitude towards speedy justice.
Consequently, the Court granted bail to Devesh Ravindra Sawant subject to conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, monthly reporting to the investigating officer, cooperation with the trial, restrictions on travel without court permission, and prohibitions against witness tampering or evidence interference. Any breach of these conditions would lead to bail cancellation.
The judgment underlines the need to balance the protection of minors with the accused's constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when the prosecution's evidence is fraught with inconsistencies.
Bottom Line:
Bail - POCSO and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita offences - Bail granted where victim's FIR disclosed love relationship, prosecution material contained contradictions with witness statements and medico-legal history did not support prosecution case - Held, presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act is not absolute and operates only when foundational facts are prima facie established.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 6(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 75(2), 78(2), 351(2), 3(5); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 4, 6, 8, 12, 29
Devesh Ravindra Sawant v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994084
