Bail granted where the examined victim did not support the prosecution and trial was likely to take time.

The applicant was arrested on 10 February 2026 in connection with allegations that he induced and took the victim, who the State said was 15 years and 3 months old, and subjected her to sexual assault. The case was registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 351(3), 64(2)(i)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

In his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant asserted that the victim was an adult and had left home voluntarily. He relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the victim’s testimony at trial, in which she said she had left voluntarily and did not support the allegation of sexual assault.

The victim and her father appeared by video conference and opposed bail.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the victim’s age, and the objection to bail.

2. Whether the applicant’s custody, completion of investigation, lack of criminal antecedents, and the victim’s testimony at trial supported release on bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2), 87, 351(3), 64(2)(i)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court cited no precedent or further statutory test; it considered the circumstances relevant to the application, including custody, completion of investigation, criminal antecedents, the victim’s evidence, and the anticipated duration of trial.

The Court weighed the serious allegations and the victim’s and her father’s opposition against the applicant’s custody since 10 February 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the victim’s evidence that she had left home voluntarily and had not supported the allegation of sexual assault.

It expressly declined to assess the reliability or credibility of the victim’s testimony, leaving that question for final adjudication. Given these circumstances and the likelihood that trial would take time, the Court found bail appropriate without commenting further on the merits.

It directed that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; requiring conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring attendance at every trial-court date until disposal of the trial.