Bail denied where a minor victim supports serious sexual assault allegations and prima facie involvement is established.

A missing report concerning the victim was lodged on 11 December 2025 at Police Station Gidhpuri. During investigation, the victim was recovered from the applicant.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant enticed the victim on the promise of marriage and repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The applicant was charged under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. The applicant had remained in custody since 16 December 2025.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the victim and her father had not supported the prosecution, that the victim’s minority was not established by cogent evidence, and that the relationship was consensual.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the victim was approximately 17 years and 2 months old at the relevant time and had supported the prosecution case in cross-examination.

The victim and her parents also appeared before the High Court and seriously objected to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material indicating that the victim was below 18 years of age.

Whether the alleged consensual relationship, the applicant’s contention regarding the victim’s age, and the victim’s evidence justified release on bail at the pre-trial stage.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which concern, inter alia, sexual offences against a child and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

At the bail stage, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or determine the ultimate credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses; those matters fall within the domain of the trial court at final adjudication.

Bail must therefore be assessed on the prima facie material, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the surrounding circumstances.

The Court found prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offences.

Although the applicant relied on the alleged love affair, consensual relationship, and the assertion that the victim and her father had not supported the prosecution, the Court noted that the victim had supported the prosecution case in her cross-examination and had made specific allegations of repeated sexual assault during the relevant period.

The victim was prima facie below 18 years of age—approximately 17 years and 2 months—when the alleged acts occurred, making the question of consent legally insufficient to negate the POCSO allegations at the bail stage.

The seriousness of the offences, the victim’s objection to bail, and the prima facie evidence outweighed the factors of custody duration and filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court declined to conduct a detailed assessment of the victim’s credibility, as that was reserved for trial.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and the Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the trial court for necessary information and compliance.