Bail granted after charge-sheet filing, prolonged custody, and the victim’s hostile testimony.

The appellants, accused Nos. 1 to 3, were prosecuted in Gadag Town Police Station Crime No. 57/2025 for offences under Sections 64, 70, 71 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 6 of the POCSO Act; Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 sexually assaulted the minor victim at a lodge, that accused No. 2 recorded the incident, and that accused No. 3 was present; the video was allegedly shared in a WhatsApp group.

The appellants were arrested on 10 April 2025, and the investigation was completed and charge-sheet filed.

After the Sessions Court rejected their bail applications, they appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

By the time of the appeals, the victim had been examined as PW1 and had not supported the prosecution case in material particulars.

1. Whether the appellants had established grounds for bail pending trial, having regard to the completion of the investigation, their period of custody, and the victim’s evidence.

2. Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences, notwithstanding the victim’s testimony, justified continued detention.

The appeals were brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the original bail applications had been made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations alongside the stage of the proceedings, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the victim’s examination, the period of custody, the absence of indicated criminal antecedents, and the appellants’ willingness to comply with conditions.

No precedent was cited or applied in the judgment.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, including the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but found that the investigation was complete and the victim had already testified, reducing the need for continued pre-trial detention on the material before it.

It also took account of the appellants’ custody since 10 April 2025, the absence of indicated criminal antecedents, and their willingness to comply with conditions.

On the combined circumstances, the Court concluded that bail was justified subject to stringent safeguards.

Bail was subject to conditions including a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 each with one surety for the like sum, non-interference with witnesses, regular attendance, and restrictions on criminal activity and travel.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law if a condition is violated.