Bail granted despite the victim’s objection, considering reporting delay and completion of the investigation.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Section 69(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012

The prosecution alleged that he sexually exploited the victim on the pretext of marriage, beginning when she was about 16, and later refused to marry her; the FIR was lodged on 2 June 2026, when she was about 23

The applicant relied on the delay in reporting, the victim’s statements describing a relationship, the filing of the charge-sheet, his lack of criminal antecedents, and his custody since 16 July 2026

The State opposed bail, and the victim objected to release during a video-conference appearance before the Court

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail having regard to the nature of the allegations, the victim’s objection, and the other circumstances of the case

2. Whether bail should be subject to conditions to protect the fairness and progress of the trial

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the Court’s jurisdiction to consider regular bail

The Court applied no cited precedent or separately articulated legal test; it considered the case-specific circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the victim’s objection, the delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant’s custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and his lack of criminal antecedents

Bail was made subject to conditions directed at preventing interference with witnesses and ensuring the applicant’s attendance at trial

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s objection, but weighed these against the approximately seven-year delay in reporting, the victim’s age at the time of the FIR, the submissions concerning her statements about the relationship, completion of the investigation through filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of antecedents, and his period in custody

On the totality of those circumstances, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, it found bail appropriate

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions against threatening or influencing persons acquainted with the case, prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial Court until disposal