Bail denied where the victim’s statement and medical evidence prima facie supported aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The prosecution alleged that the 15-year-old victim went missing after attending an SSLC examination.

The judgment gives differing dates for the missing complaint: 2 April 2026 in its factual summary and 4 April 2026 in its later account.

The victim was traced on 8 April 2026.

Her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) alleged that the petitioner took her to a temple, tied a tali around her neck, and later sexually assaulted her in Hyderabad.

The medical opinion indicated definite evidence of intercourse.

The petitioner was arrested, and the investigating officer filed a charge sheet.

After the Sessions Court rejected his regular-bail application on 6 August 2026, he sought bail under Section 483 BNSS.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, having regard to the allegations, supporting material, and relevant bail considerations

2. Whether the petitioner’s request for bail should be deferred, with liberty to renew it after examination of the victim and her mother

The petition was considered under Section 483 BNSS, the provision invoked for the High Court’s regular-bail jurisdiction.

The alleged offences were under Sections 65(1) and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the prima facie material, the gravity and nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged overt acts, and the possibility of absconding or fleeing from justice.

The Court found prima facie material in the victim’s Section 183 BNSS statement, which described the petitioner’s alleged conduct, and in the medical opinion supporting intercourse.

Considering this material together with the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk of the petitioner absconding or fleeing from justice, the Court concluded that bail was not warranted at that stage.

It nevertheless allowed the petitioner to renew his application after the victim and her mother had been examined.

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a similar bail petition after examination of the victim and her mother; its observations were limited to disposal of the petition.