Bail granted where the victim and her mother did not support prosecution and trial conclusion was delayed.

The applicant was arrested on 15 January 2026 in connection with Crime No. 57/2025 registered at Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 4(1) of the POCSO Act, and Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had sexually assaulted the victim, who was stated to be approximately 17 years old; the FIR was lodged by the victim’s father.

During the bail proceedings, the victim and her father appeared through virtual mode and expressed no objection to the applicant’s release on bail.

The applicant submitted that the victim and her mother had been examined before the trial court and had not supported the prosecution case, and further contended that the victim was above 18 years on the date of the alleged incident.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was 17 years old and that serious allegations had been made against the applicant.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations and the offences invoked.

2. Whether the victim’s and her mother’s failure to support the prosecution case, the victim’s 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, while considering the offences alleged under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(1) of the BNS.

The governing bail principles require consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material available against the accused, the conduct and testimony of material witnesses, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of misuse of bail.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring the applicant’s cooperation with the trial and presence at specified stages, with consequences for breach or misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s contention that the victim was a minor.

However, at the bail stage, it gave significant weight to the fact that the victim and her mother had already been examined and had not supported the prosecution case, and that the victim had denied the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor.

The victim had also raised no objection to the applicant’s release.

Considering these circumstances, the applicant’s custody since 15 January 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take further time, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted and exercised its discretion in favour of bail.

The Court safeguarded the proceedings by prescribing detailed conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for absence or misuse of liberty.

The Court directed that Manoj Kumar Kushwaha be released on bail in Crime No. 57/2025 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the trial, attendance on scheduled dates, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the accused’s statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with applicable provisions in the event of absence, proclamation or misuse of bail.