Bail denied in POCSO and BNS rape case despite victim's testimony contradictions and trial delay.

The applicants filed their first bail applications following their arrest on July 31, 2025.

On July 29, 2025, Victim No. 1 (the sister-in-law of Victim No. 2) lodged an FIR alleging that on July 8, 2025, the applicants entered her house at night.

It was alleged that Rakesh Prajapati committed forceful rape on Victim No. 2 (a minor aged 15-16 years), while Dinesh Kumar molested Victim No. 1.

The applicants contended that there was an unexplained 21-day delay in filing the FIR, lack of proof regarding the minor's age, and contradictions in the testimony of Victim No. 1, who had already been examined.

The State and the victims (appearing via video conferencing) opposed the bail, noting that the minor victim had yet to testify.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the current stage of the trial.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Substantively, the case involved Sections 70(B) (gang rape/aggravated rape), 74 (assault/criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty), and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which prescribe stringent penalties for sexual offenses against minors.

The court evaluated the gravity of the offenses and the evidence collected by the prosecution, specifically noting the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

While the applicants pointed to a delay in the FIR and alleged contradictions in the testimony of Victim No. 1, the court highlighted that Victim No. 2 (the minor prosecutrix) is a crucial witness who has not yet been examined before the trial court.

The court determined that at this stage, the material available on record and the seriousness of the allegations outweighed the arguments for release, concluding that granting bail could potentially prejudice the remaining trial proceedings.

However, noting that the applicants had been in custody since July 2025 and only one out of thirteen witnesses had been examined, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial preferably within five months.