A child tried as an adult may be granted bail where material witnesses turn hostile and detention lacks justification.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim, then a minor, and later married her by tying a thali, lived with her at his parents’ house, and subsequently threatened her.

The victim contacted the Child Helpline on 6 February 2025; a complaint was later lodged and an FIR registered on 4 September 2025.

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

The petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 12 December 2006, making him 17 at the time of the alleged incident; the victim’s date of birth was recorded as 3 August 2010.

The petitioner had been in an observation home since 8 September 2025 and, following an order under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, had been shifted to a place of safety.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the charges, risk of absconding, possible delay to trial and risk of similar offending.

The victim and her parents had given evidence before the trial court but did not support the prosecution.

The Court considered Section 483 BNSS, under which the petitioner sought regular bail, and the charges under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 3(5) BNS, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

It also noted the petitioner’s transfer to a place of safety following an order under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The Court applied the principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception,” observing that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment and that appropriate conditions may address risks raised by the prosecution.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charged offences and the State’s objections, but found that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.

It gave weight to the victim and her parents not supporting the prosecution at trial, the absence of material showing prior offending, and the petitioner’s custody in a place of safety.

The Court clarified that release on bail would not amount to acquittal, as the trial—including the examination of official witnesses and the doctor—would continue.

It considered that the State’s concerns could be met by requiring the petitioner to attend and assist the trial, refrain from contacting the victim and her parents, avoid witness interference and not commit further offences.

The Court directed that breach of any bail condition would result in cancellation of bail.