Allegations limited to touching and absence of medical evidence of intercourse support bail.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with Yelburga Police Station Crime No. 12/2026, registered for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(1)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution case arose from a missing complaint concerning the complainant’s 17-year-old daughter, who was later traced with the petitioner.

The petitioner sought bail, contending that the relationship was consensual, that the victim’s statement did not allege penetrative or aggravated sexual assault, and that the investigation and charge-sheet were complete.

The State and the victim’s representative opposed bail, citing the allegations and the risk of witness tampering.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the evidence and circumstances on record.

2. Whether the risk of absconding or interference with prosecution witnesses warranted refusal of bail.

The Court considered its bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2) and 64(1)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the potential punishment, the status of the investigation, the possibility of absconding, the petitioner’s character and antecedents, and the risk of witness tampering.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, as described by the Court, did not allege penetrative or aggravated sexual assault; it stated that the petitioner touched her body, which the Court considered capable, at most, of attracting Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

The medical and forensic material recorded no external injuries, found the hymen intact, reported no history of sexual intercourse, and detected no seminal stains or spermatozoa.

With the investigation complete and the charge-sheet filed, the Court assessed the bail factors and concluded that release subject to conditions was appropriate.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not tamper with or threaten prosecution witnesses, attend court regularly, and not involve himself in any offence; breach could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

The Court stated that its observations were made only for deciding the bail petition.