Bail granted despite the victim’s objection where the principal assault allegation concerned a co-accused and trial would take time.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a case registered under Sections 64(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the co-accused sexually assaulted the victim on 19 February 2026 and later threatened to circulate an objectionable video. On the night of 19 May 2026, the applicant and co-accused allegedly went to the victim’s house, where the co-accused slapped her; the accused fled after she raised an alarm.

The applicant was arrested on 2 June 2026. He argued that the principal allegation of sexual assault was against the co-accused, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that the charge-sheet had been filed. The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant had assisted the co-accused.

The victim appeared before the Court and opposed bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the victim’s objection and the allegation that he assisted the co-accused.

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the basis for the Court to consider a regular-bail application.

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The order cites no precedent or further express legal test governing the bail determination.

The Court considered the victim’s objection but noted that the principal allegation of sexual assault was against the co-accused, Himanu Khunte.

It also took into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since 2 June 2026 while the trial was likely to take time. On these circumstances, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits.