Bail granted in POCSO case after the victim and her mother turned hostile and completed testimony.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that he sexually assaulted the victim, then aged about 15, on the pretext of marriage.

The applicant disputed her age and submitted that she was over 18 on the date of the incident.

By the time of the bail hearing, the victim and her mother had been examined at trial and had not supported the prosecution; both appeared before the High Court and consented to bail.

The applicant had been in custody since 30 March 2026.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to the victim’s and her mother’s trial testimony, the period of custody and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court considered the application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for regular bail.

The charged provisions—Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act—set out the offences alleged against the applicant.

In deciding bail, the Court relied on the case-specific circumstances identified in its order: the prosecution witnesses had been examined and had not supported the prosecution, the applicant had remained in custody since 30 March 2026, and the trial was likely to take further time.

The order cites no precedent.

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations, which the State relied on in opposing bail, against the fact that the victim and her mother had already testified without supporting the prosecution and that the victim had denied the prosecutor’s suggestions.

It also considered the applicant’s time in custody and the likely delay before trial concluded. On balance, those circumstances persuaded the Court to grant bail.

The Court directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions concerning adjournments, attendance, and presence at specified trial stages.

The order also prescribed consequences for non-compliance, including proceedings under the cited statutory provisions where applicable.