Bail Granted Where Minor Victim and Parents Did Not Support the Prosecution at Trial

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 70(2), 87 and 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants lured and sexually assaulted the 15-year-old victim on 3 May 2026; the FIR was registered on her father’s complaint dated 5 May 2026.

The applicants submitted that the victim and her parents had been examined at trial and had not supported the prosecution, that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, and that they had been in custody since 6 May 2026.

The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s age and medical evidence.

The order also records that the victim and her mother appeared by video conference and raised an objection to bail.

1. Whether the applicants should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in light of the victim’s and her parents’ trial testimony, the completed investigation, and the applicants’ period in custody.

2. Whether the victim’s stated consent to bail could be considered where the prosecution alleged that she was a minor at the time of the incident.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 70(2), 87 and 96 of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The Court did not cite any precedent or set out a distinct test for bail; it assessed the circumstances on the record, including the trial testimony, completion of investigation, custody, and likely time to conclude the trial.

The Court considered that the victim and her parents had been examined before the trial court and had not supported the prosecution; in particular, the victim denied the prosecutor’s suggestions concerning sexual assault.

It also noted that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicants had been in custody since 6 May 2026.

Although the State argued that the victim’s consent was irrelevant because she was a minor and relied on medical evidence, the Court found the circumstances sufficient to grant bail.

The order records both that the victim raised an objection during the video-conference appearance and that she had given consent to bail.

It directed that the applicants be released on execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety in the like sum, subject to conditions against influencing witnesses or prejudicing a fair trial and requiring appearance on every trial-court date.

The trial court was to decide the case independently on its merits.