The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused facing trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while expressing strong displeasure over the recurrent failure of law enforcement agencies to investigate instances where crucial prosecution witnesses turn hostile.

The single-judge bench observed that when victims or key witnesses resile from their initial statements during trial proceedings, investigating officers often demonstrate complete apathy instead of examining whether witness tampering, intimidation, or illicit settlements took place behind the scenes.

Bail Granted Amid Deposition Contradictions

While evaluating the bail plea, the court noted significant discrepancies between the statements originally recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the depositions subsequently made during cross-examination before the trial court.

Given that the primary witness did not support the prosecution's case on material points and the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, the court held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration was unjustified. The accused was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and adhering to standard bail conditions, including non-interference with remaining witnesses and regular attendance at hearings.

Judicial Scrutiny of Hostile Witnesses

The High Court flagged a disturbing trend in sexual offence proceedings, particularly involving minors, where trials are compromised due to witness hostilisation. The bench noted that despite the Supreme Court's explicit directives under the Witness Protection Scheme, trial-level authorities and police investigators rarely initiate inquiries to determine if coercion, monetary settlements, or family pressure induced the witness's reversal.

Key concerns underscored by the court include:

* Absence of Follow-up Inquiries: Investigating officers frequently treat a hostile witness as an ordinary procedural outcome rather than probing potential criminal interference or perjury. * Witness Protection Gaps: The bench highlighted inadequate ground-level implementation of threat assessments and witness protection measures, leaving vulnerable families exposed to pressure. * Compromising the Integrity of POCSO Act: The court warned that systematic hostilisation of witnesses without accountability undermines the deterrent intent of child protection legislation.

Directives to Law Enforcement

The High Court urged supervisory police officials to formulate rigorous protocols to ensure that whenever a complainant or key witness turns hostile in serious criminal matters, the matter is reviewed to establish whether threats or inducements were involved.

The bench reiterated that the justice delivery mechanism cannot remain a passive spectator when criminal proceedings are compromised, calling for greater diligence, timely trial support, and effective protective custody for vulnerable witnesses throughout sensitive trials.