Bail granted where prosecutrix’s trial testimony materially supported the accused and investigation was complete.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 454/2025 registered at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2), 65(1) and 127(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The applicant had been in custody since 2 February 2026, and his earlier bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had raped the minor prosecutrix.

The applicant contended that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the prosecutrix, examined as P.W.1, had stated that she named the applicant to protect Keshav from trouble, thereby casting doubt on the applicant’s involvement.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant should be released on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the prosecutrix’s deposition.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s cooperation with the trial and prevent interference with the prosecution evidence.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It also considered the seriousness of the offences alleged under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2), 65(1) and 127(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The general bail principles relevant to the decision included consideration of the period of custody, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the need for further custodial interrogation, the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the likely duration of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order; the Court expressly clarified that its decision was without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 2 February 2026, the investigation had concluded, and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the need for further custodial interrogation.

It also took into account the applicant’s reliance on the prosecutrix’s deposition as P.W.1, which allegedly supported the defence version and raised doubt concerning his involvement.

Although the State opposed bail, the Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, found the circumstances sufficient to grant bail without determining the merits of the prosecution case.

To address risks relating to attendance, cooperation, repetition of offences, influence over witnesses and departure from India, the Court imposed specific conditions under the bail order.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation or trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from committing or repeating any offence, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

The application was accordingly allowed and disposed of, with directions for circulation of the order to the concerned police station and trial court.