Bail granted where minor prosecutrix admitted marriage and did not support prosecution’s allegations.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2026 registered at Police Station Bango, District Korba, for offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that on 18 July 2025 the applicant took the minor prosecutrix to a forest area and sexually assaulted her, and thereafter repeatedly sexually assaulted her. The prosecutrix became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 23 March 2026; her mother lodged the FIR on 24 March 2026.

The applicant filed his first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

He contended that the prosecutrix had deposed that she had married him and had not maintained a physical relationship with him while she was a minor. He also relied on the absence of criminal antecedents, his custody since 7 May 2026, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the ground of parity.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

Whether the prosecutrix’s deposition regarding her marriage to the applicant and the birth of a child justified the grant of bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail; Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, under which the applicant was being prosecuted; and the general principles governing bail, including consideration of the material in the case diary, the accused’s custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the circumstances emerging from the victim’s testimony.

The Court also imposed statutory and procedural conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent misuse of bail, and facilitate the expeditious conduct of the trial.

The Court considered the prosecutrix’s deposition that she had performed marriage with the applicant and the fact that she subsequently gave birth to a child on 23 March 2026.

These circumstances, together with the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, period of custody, and the expected duration of the trial, persuaded the Court that he was entitled to bail.

The Court expressly clarified that its assessment was confined to the bail application and that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The State’s opposition did not outweigh these considerations.

The High Court directed that Jaiprakash @ Bhuru be released in Crime No. 61/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.