Sexual Assault Leaves Lasting Physical, Emotional and Mental Trauma on a Child”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Despite Absence of Medical Evidence of Penetrative Assault

Case Name: Diljit Singh @ Diljeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-35567-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the absence of medical evidence indicating penetrative assault cannot, by itself, be a ground for granting regular bail in a prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Where the child victim has consistently supported the prosecution case before the Trial Court, such testimony constitutes substantive evidence carrying significant evidentiary value at the stage of considering bail. The gravity of the allegations, the age of the victim, and the victim’s consistent testimony outweighed the petitioner’s reliance on the medical evidence.

Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 127(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner enticed a minor child to a secluded place on a false pretext, committed sexual assault, and threatened the victim with dire consequences if the incident was disclosed.

The petitioner contended that the medical evidence did not indicate penetrative assault, he had been falsely implicated, the investigation had concluded, the challan had already been presented, and most of the material witnesses, including the victim, had already been examined, leaving no possibility of influencing the prosecution evidence. The State opposed the bail plea by submitting that the allegations were grave, the victim had consistently implicated the petitioner throughout the investigation, and had fully supported the prosecution while deposing before the Trial Court.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that while dealing with bail applications in cases involving sexual offences against children, courts are required to exercise greater caution in view of the seriousness of such offences and their lasting impact on child victims. The Court further held that the victim’s testimony constitutes substantive evidence and that the absence of medical findings indicating penetrative assault cannot, at the bail stage, outweigh the consistent testimony of the victim. Since the allegations were serious and the victim had supported the prosecution case, the Court found no justification to grant regular bail.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for regular bail, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail in view of the gravity of the allegations and the victim’s consistent testimony supporting the prosecution.