Absence of Specific Overt Acts and Non-Implication in Relevant Statutory Statements Warrant Bail for Alleged Accomplice.

The applicant, Bhupendra Singh, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on September 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 159/2025 involving the kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor victim (aged 13 years and 9 months).

While the main accused, Vijendra, is alleged to have committed the assault, the applicant was implicated based on a statement under Section 180 of BNSS suggesting he assisted in moving the victim to a hut.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated due to his relationship with the main accused and noted the absence of specific allegations against him in the victim's Section 183 BNSS statement.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of his alleged involvement and the absence of specific allegations of sexual assault or coercion against him.

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding bail provisions.

The substantive charges involved Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; Sections 5L/6 and 3/4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act; and multiple sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The court applied the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, especially where the complicity of the accused is prima facie questionable and the investigation is complete.

The Court observed that while the main accused faced grave charges of penetrative sexual assault, the applicant’s role was limited to allegedly assisting the main accused.

Crucially, the Court noted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS did not contain specific allegations that the applicant enticed, compelled, or threatened her.

The Court emphasized that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a 30-year-old agriculturist with family roots, and has been in custody since September 2025.

Given that the final report had already been submitted and there was no evidence of a likelihood of the applicant fleeing justice or tampering with witnesses, the Court found the applicant's contentions to have prima facie merit.

The grant of bail is subject to standard conditions, including regular attendance at trial, non-commission of similar offences, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not reflect on the merits of the upcoming trial.