Bail Granted Where the Record Contained No Definite Allegation of Penetrative or Aggravated Sexual Assault

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case registered for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(i), (k) and (m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the complainant’s minor daughter after she went missing.

The petitioner asserted that they had been in a relationship and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed.

The State opposed bail, citing the prima facie case and risks of witness tampering and reoffending.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the victim’s statement, the medical records, the completed investigation and the nature of the alleged offences.

Whether concerns about witness tampering or commission of a similar offence warranted refusal of bail.

The Court exercised its regular-bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS (Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.).

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(i), (k) and (m) of the BNS, read with Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court assessed the material on record, including the victim’s statement and medical records, the stage of the investigation, and the nature and gravity of the alleged offences.

No precedent or more detailed legal test was cited in the order.

The Court noted that the victim was a minor, but considered her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, in which she stated that she had been in a love relationship with the petitioner and, as recorded by the Court, did not state that he had kidnapped her or committed penetrative sexual assault.

The Court also noted that the medical records disclosed no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, while recording the victim’s history that she had often had sex with the petitioner.

In combination with the completed investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the Court found no definite allegation of penetrative and aggravated sexual assault for purposes of deciding bail and concluded that bail was appropriate.

Although the State raised concerns about witness tampering and reoffending, the Court granted bail subject to conditions addressing those risks.

Conditions included not tampering with or threatening prosecution witnesses, regularly appearing before the trial court, and not involving himself in similar offences.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail for breach of a condition; the Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition.