BAIL GRANTED DUE TO PROLONGED PRE-TRIAL DETENTION AND LIKELY DELAYED TRIAL CONCLUSION.

The applicant, Bharat Aadivasi, was arrested on December 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 333/2025 registered at Police Station Bahadurpur, District Ashoknagar.

The charges against him include offenses under Section 137(2), 64(2)(M) of BNS read with Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act, specifically relating to kidnapping, rape, and offenses under the POCSO Act concerning a prosecutrix stated to be 16 years and 6 months of age.

The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution story, particularly the prosecutrix leaving her house at night and traveling with the applicant to Jaipur where they stayed together for several days, indicates that the allegations require careful appreciation during trial rather than being conclusive proof of guilt.

It was also submitted that the prosecutrix and applicant were known to each other, and material facts have been suppressed.

Investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet filed.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since December 7, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted bail in light of the allegations of kidnapping, rape, and offenses under the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the prolonged pre-trial detention, coupled with the likelihood of the trial taking a long time, warrants granting bail to the applicant.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which pertains to the grant of bail.

The principle that "prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty" guided the court's consideration of the bail application.

The court considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations.

It noted that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future and that prolonged pre-trial detention is contrary to the concept of liberty, despite the gravity of the offenses alleged.

The applicant's counsel contended that the prosecution story was unreliable, especially concerning the prosecutrix's actions of leaving home at night and traveling with the applicant for several days, suggesting that the allegations were exaggerated and required strict proof during trial.

It was also argued that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet filed, and there was no likelihood of the applicant absconding, interfering with the investigation, or tampering with evidence.

The court considered these arguments, implicitly weighing them against the State's vehement opposition.

Ultimately, the court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail.

The applicant is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.

This grant of bail is subject to standard conditions, including compliance with bond terms, cooperation in investigation/trial, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not committing other offenses, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and not leaving India without permission.