Absence of specific overt acts and victim's voluntary statement justify anticipatory bail despite POCSO allegations.

The applicant, Uddham Singh, filed his first anticipatory bail application following a missing person report lodged on November 15, 2025, regarding a 14-year-old minor girl (prosecutrix)

The prosecution alleged that the co-accused, Pradhuman Meena, enticed the minor away, leading to charges under Sections 137(2), 64(2-M), 65(2), 61(2), 142, 87, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of the POCSO Act

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, as the prosecutrix's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS indicated she left voluntarily to meet Pradhuman and attributed no overt act, inducement, or coercion to the applicant

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, based on a lack of specific overt acts or evidence of involvement in the kidnapping and sexual offences

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 438 CrPC), which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

It considered the charging provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including Section 137(2) regarding kidnapping and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, specifically Sections 4, 5, 16, and 17

The court relied on the principle that the absence of a flight risk, the lack of specific allegations in the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS, and the absence of physical evidence/recovery against the applicant are grounds for relief

The Court examined the material on record and noted that the primary allegations and the prosecutrix’s narrative focused exclusively on the co-accused, Pradhuman Meena

It observed that the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS did not attribute any role to the applicant regarding enticement, coercion, or physical assault

The Court reasoned that the prosecution had "mechanically implicated" the applicant without demonstrating essential ingredients of the alleged BNS or POCSO offences

Finding no evidence of recovery from the applicant and noting his status as a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, not threatening witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission