Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh Granted Bail Following Doubts on Age and Consistency of Allegations by the Prosecutrix
In a significant ruling on August 18, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, granted bail to Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision came after the prosecutrix turned hostile, raising questions about her age and the credibility of her allegations.
The case originated from an FIR filed on April 19, 2025, by the prosecutrix's brother, alleging that she, then purportedly 17, had been sexually assaulted, leading to her pregnancy. However, during the trial, the prosecutrix claimed she was over 18 at the time of the incident, contradicting her school certificate. Notably, she and her brother both denied the allegations of sexual assault in court.
DNA evidence initially pointed to Sheikh as the biological father of the prosecutrix's child, presenting a strong case against him. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that DNA evidence alone could not establish the absence of consent, especially given the prosecutrix’s changing testimonies and her assertion of being above the age of majority.
Justice Dhar emphasized the rebuttable nature of the statutory presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act, noting that it could be challenged based on the circumstances and evidence during the trial. The judgment highlighted the absence of a statutory bar on granting bail in POCSO cases, underscoring that each case must be assessed on its unique facts and merits.
Granting bail, the court imposed strict conditions on Sheikh, including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, restrictions on leaving the Union Territory, and a prohibition on intimidating witnesses. The decision reflects the judiciary's nuanced approach to balancing evidentiary challenges with the rights of the accused in sensitive cases involving minors.
Bottom Line:
Bail in cases under POCSO Act can be granted based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including contradictions in age evidence of the prosecutrix, the presence of DNA evidence, and the testimony of key witnesses.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 4, 6, 29, 30), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 64).
