Absence of prima facie compulsion and inordinate trial delay justify bail under POCSO Act.

This is a second application for bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The applicant was arrested on July 26, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 150/2025 for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 64(2)(m), and 127(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5(l) & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012

The prosecution alleges the applicant kidnapped and sexually assaulted a minor aged 15 years and 8 months

The applicant contends that the parties were in a romantic relationship, were previously engaged in 2022, and that the victim accompanied him voluntarily

Procedurally, the first bail application was withdrawn in January 2026, and the trial is currently stalled due to a vacancy in the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO) since November 14, 2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the victim's statement and the procedural delay in the trial

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It considered the substantive provisions of Sections 64 and 87 of the BNS, 2023, alongside Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act

The court further relied on established judicial principles that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly focusing on the absence of criminal antecedents, the lack of prima facie evidence of force in the victim's Section 183 BNSS statement, and the right to a speedy trial as reflected in the concerns over judicial vacancies and Section 346 of the BNSS

The Court observed that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS prima facie lacked any element of inducement, compulsion, or force, lending merit to the applicant's claim of a consensual relationship

It noted that the determination of the victim's exact age and the veracity of the prosecution's claims are matters for trial

Critically, the Court highlighted the "inordinate delay" in the trial caused by the administrative vacancy of the Special Judge (POCSO), which meant trial commencement was not foreseeable

Considering the applicant is a 25-year-old labourer with no criminal history and fixed family roots, the Court found no evidence of recidivism or the likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence

The Court held that continued incarceration was not warranted given the delay in trial and the socio-economic status of the applicant

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the trial court, non-involvement in similar offences, and a prohibition against influencing witnesses