Bail granted after prolonged custody and completed investigation, with no FSL evidence of sexual intercourse.

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from a complaint that the complainant’s 15-year-and-8-month-old daughter had gone missing and had been taken by the petitioner to a lodge, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her

The victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS described repeated aggravated and penetrative sexual assault; the prosecution relied also on a medical report recording a ruptured hymen

The petitioner contended that the FSL report disclosed no evidence of sexual intercourse, that investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, and that he had been in custody for nine months

The case involved offences under Sections 74, 65(1), 137(2), 64(2)(i), 115(2), 204 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2), 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the allegations and material collected during the investigation

2. Whether completion of the investigation, the FSL report, the petitioner’s period of custody and the anticipated duration of trial supported his release on bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided the basis for the High Court’s consideration of the regular-bail application

In exercising its bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the possible punishment, the risk of absconding, the accused’s character and antecedents, the possibility of witness tampering, the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate substantive rule under the BNS or the POCSO Act; those enactments identify the offences charged

The Court acknowledged that the victim was a minor and that her Section 183 BNSS statement implicated the petitioner in repeated sexual assault

It nevertheless noted that the FSL report disclosed no evidence of sexual intercourse and treated the absence of medical corroboration as supporting the petitioner’s contentions at the bail stage

The Court also relied on the petitioner’s nine months in custody, the completed investigation and filed charge-sheet, the likely duration of trial, and his stated permanent residence and willingness to comply with conditions

Considering these circumstances alongside the relevant bail factors, it concluded that conditional release was appropriate

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting threats to or tampering with prosecution witnesses, requiring attendance at trial when required, and prohibiting involvement in similar or other offences; breach could prompt an application for cancellation of bail

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition