Court upholds presumption of guilt under POCSO Act, dismisses parity plea with co-accused, and highlights systemic coercion and forged documents in serious criminal allegations
In a significant judgment dated June 30, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the bail application filed by Tanveer, accused of sexual assault and forcible religious conversion under multiple stringent laws including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act, and the Freedom of Religion Act.
Tanveer was charged under Sections 64 (2) (e) & (f) and 70 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 5(l)(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 5 of the Freedom of Religion Act. The charges stemmed from an FIR lodged on May 3, 2026, in Bahadrabad police station, Haridwar district, alleging sexual assault of a minor and a planned attempt at forced religious conversion, including the creation of forged identity documents.
The applicant's counsel argued for bail on grounds of innocence, the victim's denial of allegations during cross-examination, absence of spermatozoa in forensic reports, and parity with co-accused Nazim, who was granted bail earlier. It was also contended that the applicant had been in custody since May 2025 and the trial was unlikely to be expedited.
However, the State vehemently opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim was a minor and thus any claim of consensual relationship was legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act. The prosecution presented compelling forensic evidence, including a mixed DNA sample from the victim's vaginal swab matching the applicant's blood sample, indicating physical contact. Additionally, the recovery of a forged Aadhaar card under a false name "Bisara" was cited as proof of a premeditated scheme to coerce the victim into forced religious conversion.
The Court noted that the absence of spermatozoa does not negate the occurrence of sexual assault, as semen may lack spermatozoa due to medical conditions or the nature of the assault. It reaffirmed the statutory presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act once the victim's minor status is established. The victim's hostility or denial during the trial was deemed insufficient to override scientific evidence and was to be assessed during the trial's final adjudication.
Regarding the plea for parity, the Court observed that the allegations against Tanveer were distinct and more serious than those against the co-accused Nazim, particularly due to his active role in coercion and forged document creation. The Court characterized the case as involving a systemic attempt at forcible religious conversion under deep coercion.
Consequently, the Court found no grounds to grant bail and dismissed the application, allowing the trial court to proceed without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
This judgment sends a strong message about the judiciary's reliance on scientific evidence and statutory protections for minors, and its stern stance against crimes involving sexual assault and forced religious conversion.
Bottom Line:
Bail application was dismissed in a case involving allegations of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, SC/ST Act, and Freedom of Religion Act, citing strong forensic evidence, presumption of guilt under POCSO Act, and systemic attempt of forcible religion conversion.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 64(2)(e), 64(2)(f), 70(1); POCSO Act Sections 5(l)(n), 6, 29, 30; SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(v); Freedom of Religion Act Section 5
Tanveer v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981999
