Bail granted considering prolonged relationship, delayed FIR, completed investigation, and likely trial delay.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case registered under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 and 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage while she was under 18, that the relationship continued until the report was lodged, and that she conceived and later aborted.

The applicant submitted that the prosecutrix was born on 8 July 2000 and was 17 years and 9 months old on the alleged first incident date, 15 April 2018; that the relationship was consensual and continued for years; and that the FIR was delayed.

He also relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 27 April 2026, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The judgment refers to the FIR as lodged on 26 April 2026 in its summary of the prosecution case, but records the applicant’s submission that it was lodged on 24 June 2026.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of the allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act and the circumstances relied on by the parties.

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The Court assessed bail by considering the circumstances of the case, including the nature and duration of the alleged relationship, the asserted delay in reporting, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

The order cites no judicial precedent or further legal test.

The Court considered that the relationship had continued from 15 April 2018 until April 2026 and treated it as consensual for the purpose of deciding bail.

It also relied on the absence of criminal antecedents, the delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant’s custody since 27 April 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that trial would take time.

On those combined circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail, without determining the merits of the allegations at trial.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring attendance at trial, an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, personal appearance on specified trial dates, and consequences for misuse of bail or failure to appear.