Bail Granted After Victim and Parents Denied the Allegations at Trial

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging that he took a minor victim away on the pretext of marriage, repeatedly sexually assaulted her, and made and circulated obscene photographs and videos.

The offences invoked were Sections 137(2), 65(1), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The applicant had been in custody since 9 May 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

At the time of the bail hearing, the victim and her parents had been examined at trial and declared hostile; the victim and her father also expressed no objection to bail before a Coordinate Bench.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and an unexplained criminal antecedent.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the trial evidence to date, the custody period, and the other circumstances of the case.

Whether the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s criminal antecedent warranted refusal of bail despite the victim and her parents not supporting the prosecution at trial.

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

In assessing bail, the Court considered the overall facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the evidence given by material witnesses, the applicant’s custody and the likely time for conclusion of trial.

The Court acknowledged the serious allegations and the State’s reliance on the applicant’s criminal antecedent, but gave particular weight to the fact that the victim and her father had been examined and had not supported the prosecution.

The victim had denied the allegations in the FIR and her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, as well as the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor.

The Court also considered the victim’s and her father’s stated lack of objection to bail, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 9 May 2026, and the expected delay before trial concluded.

On the combined circumstances, it found that the applicant deserved bail, without expressing a view on the merits.

It directed release upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicant must not induce, threaten or promise anything to a person acquainted with the case facts to dissuade disclosure; must not act prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial; and must attend every trial date until disposal.