Bail granted where the minor prosecutrix disowned the prosecution case and prolonged custody was likely.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Naimed, District Bijapur, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant lured the minor victim on the promise of marriage, took her to his village in February 2025, and thereafter to Bhairamgarh, where he allegedly subjected her to repeated forcible sexual relations until 4 January 2026.

The victim subsequently informed her brother, and a report was lodged on 12 January 2026.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that he had been falsely implicated, and that the victim had not supported the prosecution during her trial testimony.

He had remained in custody since 15 January 2026 and claimed that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had sexually assaulted the minor on the pretext of marriage.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the offences alleged against him and the material available in the case diary.

Whether the victim’s failure to support the prosecution during her testimony, her no-objection to bail, the applicant’s period of custody, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail.

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

It considered the allegations under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, which formed the basis of the prosecution case.

In determining bail, the Court considered the material in the case diary, the victim’s testimony before the trial court, her statement of having no objection to bail, the applicant’s period of incarceration, and the likely duration of the trial.

The bail order was expressly made without commenting on the merits of the criminal case, which were left for determination by the trial court.

The Court noted that the victim had appeared through video conferencing and stated that she had no objection to the applicant being released on bail.

More significantly for the limited purpose of bail, the Court found from the victim’s evidence recorded before the trial court that she had not supported the prosecution and had denied the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor.

Although the State alleged that the applicant had lured and sexually assaulted a minor on the promise of marriage, the Court considered the changed evidentiary position, the applicant’s custody since 15 January 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail, without expressing any final view on the merits of the prosecution case.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to remain available for police interrogation, refrain from making any inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts of the case, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s independent decision on the merits.