Bail granted to alleged mediator where no material linked him to the sexual assault.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the main accused abducted the 17-year-old victim on a false promise of marriage and sexually assaulted her; the allegation against the applicant was that he acted as a mediator between the main accused and the victim’s father.

The applicant relied on the absence of prior criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 12 May 2026, and the likely duration of the trial.

The victim’s father objected to bail.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material against him.

Whether the applicant’s custody, criminal antecedents, and the filing of the charge-sheet supported release on bail despite the victim’s father’s objection.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which provides the relevant basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The Court assessed the applicant’s alleged role and the material against him, his criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period spent in custody.

The Court distinguished the applicant’s alleged role from the main accused’s alleged sexual assault: the applicant was alleged only to have acted as a mediator, and the Court found no material on record against him.

It also took into account that he had no previous criminal history, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had been in custody since 12 May 2026.

On those considerations, the Court found the case fit for regular bail, notwithstanding the victim’s father’s objection.

It directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount, subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the facts, prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and failure to attend each trial-court date.

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