Triple Test Not Conclusive in POCSO Cases: Bombay High Court Denies Bail Amid Strong Prima Facie Evidence

The Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on July 2, 2025, rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving alleged sexual assault on a 17-year-old minor boy at Aksa Beach, Mumbai. The Court held that while the "triple test"—namely, whether a prima facie case exists, whether the accused is likely to abscond, and whether the accused may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses—is a settled principle in bail jurisprudence, it cannot be applied in isolation in cases involving heinous sexual offences against minors.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that in POCSO matters, courts are duty-bound to exercise heightened caution and judicial sensitivity. The Court emphasized that even when the triple test appears satisfied, bail may still be denied if the overall circumstances suggest that the accused’s release may pose a risk to the fair administration of justice. In the present case, the prosecution established a prima facie case through the victim’s consistent statements, prompt FIR, and medical evidence showing signs of recent forceful penetration. The Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding identification inconsistencies and absence of external injuries, stating that such matters are best left to be tested during trial.

Importantly, the Court highlighted that the trauma suffered by child victims is immense and long-lasting, and that public confidence in the criminal justice system—particularly in cases involving offences against children—must be preserved. The legislative intent behind the POCSO Act, the need to protect the minor victim from influence or intimidation, and the gravity of the offence collectively outweighed the accused’s right to personal liberty. Concluding that the accused failed to establish any ground for bail, the Court dismissed the application, clarifying that the trial would proceed on its own merits and uninfluenced by the bail rejection order.