Bail denied in POCSO case involving sexual assault of minor despite claims of false implication and delay.

The Applicant, Vinay Kumar Maurya, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning FIR No. 262 of 2025.

The Complainant alleged that on 10.10.2024, the Applicant lured her 15-year-old daughter to his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse under threat.

Subsequently, the Applicant allegedly stalked the victim and, on 28.08.2025, forcibly took her on a scooter before she escaped; he further issued death threats to the parents.

The Applicant has been in custody since 12.09.2025 and argued for bail based on a ten-day delay in the FIR, the "teenage" status of both parties, and claims of false implication.

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of sexual assault against a minor and the provisions of the BNS and POCSO Act.

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

Substantive charges were examined under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 137(2) (Kidnapping), Section 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation), Section 65(1) (Punishment for rape on a woman under 16 years of age), and Section 352 (Punishment for intentional insult).

Additionally, the court applied Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which provide stringent penalties for penetrative sexual assault against a minor.

The Court weighed the Applicant’s defense—centering on the delay in lodging the FIR and the youth of the parties—against the gravity of the accusations.

The Court noted the State's vehement opposition, which emphasized that the victim was a 15-year-old minor at the time of the offense.

In its reasoning, the Court prioritized the protection of minors under the POCSO Act and the severity of the sexual offense over the procedural arguments regarding the FIR delay or the duration of the Applicant's incarceration since September 2025.

The Court determined that the "overall facts and circumstances" did not warrant the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail in a matter involving a minor victim.

The bail application was rejected in connection with FIR No. 262 of 2025.