Bail granted where the claim that the victim’s age was concealed could not be brushed aside.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 4, sought regular bail in a case arising from Crime No. 47/2026, registered for offences under Sections 4, 6 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 65(1), 351(2) and 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the victim’s aunt had summoned the petitioner and other accused to her house and permitted them to have sexual intercourse with the minor victim in exchange for money.

The petitioner claimed he was a customer and that the aunt had represented the victim to be an adult.

He was arrested on 17 July 2026; his bail application before the Sessions Court was rejected on 20 August 2026.

The investigation was complete, and the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the relevant circumstances of the case

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 4, 6 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and Sections 65(1), 351(2) and 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court cited no precedent; it assessed the bail request in light of the allegations and the circumstances identified in the record.

The Court considered the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS alongside the statement of accused No. 2, the victim’s aunt.

It observed that those statements supported the petitioner’s contention that the aunt had suppressed the victim’s age and arranged for the petitioner and others to have sexual intercourse with her for money.

The Court also took into account that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents and that the investigation was complete.

In view of these circumstances and the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, it concluded that bail was warranted, subject to conditions.

He was also required to attend court regularly, refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, avoid similar offences, and not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.