The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the regular bail application of Gautam Kolare, accused of kidnapping and raping a minor girl, observing that medical evidence confirming sexual assault outweighs the victim’s hostility and failure to identify the accused in court. The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v State of Gujarat [(2019) 17 SCC 523] to reiterate that if medical evidence had not confirmed sexual assault, the trial identification parade and other corroborative evidence might have been doubtful, but in the present case, the overwhelming medical proof rendered such considerations irrelevant.
Per the prosecution, the victim, a minor girl, was reported missing on October 29, 2025, and a report was lodged the following day. She was recovered from Bhopal on November 11, 2025, in the company of the applicant. In her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim stated that she had left her parental home of her own volition and was residing with the applicant when he forcibly committed rape upon her. The defence counsel argued that the applicant and the victim knew each other and that the victim was under his love and affection, and further contended that during her examination before the Trial Court, the victim did not support the prosecution’s version of events. The defence sought bail on the ground that the applicant had been in custody since November 14, 2025.
The State’s counsel opposed the bail application, submitting that although the victim had turned hostile before the Trial Court, the medical report provided conclusive proof of sexual assault. It was also highlighted that the victim was 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offence, though the court noted she was 15 years old when reported missing. The court affirmed that in her statements, the victim clearly stated that the applicant had forcibly committed rape upon her, and this allegation was duly substantiated by the medical report.
The bench emphasized that a criminal trial is a quest for truth, and neither the accused nor the victim may be permitted to subvert the trial by falsehood or contrivance. It observed that allowing acquittal merely because a prosecution witness turns hostile, despite overwhelming medical evidence, would render justice a mockery and turn the courtroom into a theatre of the absurd. The preservation of the rule of law and societal interest necessitate that the presumption of innocence be balanced against the rights of the victim and the integrity of the judicial process.