Anticipatory bail in POCSO cases turns on prima facie evidence, offence gravity, and victim impact, not custodial interrogation alone.

In serious POCSO prosecutions, anticipatory bail depends chiefly on the prima facie case, the gravity of the accusation, and the impact on the child victim. The absence of immediate custodial interrogation is only one factor and, by itself, does not justify pre-arrest bail. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and the victim's trauma, including effects on education and the need for an unhindered investigation, are relevant considerations against grant of bail. The text notes that the order granting anticipatory bail was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anticipatory bail ought to have been granted in a case involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code; (ii) whether the absence of immediate custodial interrogation, by itself, justified grant of anticipatory bail; (iii) whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and the victim's well-being were relevant considerations while deciding pre-arrest bail.

Issue (i): Whether anticipatory bail ought to have been granted in a case involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The allegations were of sexual assault upon a minor child, supported by the FIR, the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the surrounding material. The nature of the accusation, the relationship between the accused and the victim, and the seriousness of the alleged conduct required close scrutiny before extending the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail ought not to have been granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of immediate custodial interrogation, by itself, justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Analysis: Custodial interrogation is only one relevant factor in deciding a bail application. The first consideration is whether a prima facie case exists, followed by the nature and gravity of the offence. Even if custodial interrogation is not necessary, that circumstance alone cannot override the seriousness of the accusation or compel grant of pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: The absence of custodial interrogation alone did not justify anticipatory bail.

Issue (iii): Whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and the victim's well-being were relevant considerations while deciding pre-arrest bail.

Analysis: In POCSO matters, the statutory presumption under Section 29 is a relevant factor at the stage of bail, though it does not operate mechanically in every case. The trauma suffered by the child victim, the effect on her education, and the need to allow the investigation to proceed freely were material considerations against grant of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: These considerations weighed against grant of anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The order granting anticipatory bail was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious POCSO cases, anticipatory bail must be assessed primarily on the basis of the prima facie case, the gravity of the offence, and the impact on the victim, and the absence of custodial interrogation by itself is not a sufficient ground to grant pre-arrest bail.

---