Bail granted where the victim did not support prosecution and prolonged custody made early trial unlikely.

The applicant, aged 23 years, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2026 registered at Mahila Thana, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 64(2)(M), 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant developed an acquaintance with the victim in November 2023 and established physical relations with her on 27 December 2023, despite knowing that she was approximately 17 years and 10 months old, on a false promise of marriage. The alleged relationship continued until 21 January 2026, after which the applicant allegedly refused to marry her, assaulted her, and threatened her.

The applicant filed his first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He relied, inter alia, on the victim’s testimony before the trial court, where she stated that she had married the applicant and was residing with him, and on the absence of criminal antecedents and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

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

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the evidence available on record?

Whether the victim’s testimony before the trial court, in which she did not support the prosecution case, together with the applicant’s period of custody and the anticipated delay in trial, justified his release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

It considered the allegations under Sections 64(2)(M), 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In determining bail, the Court assessed the material in the case diary, the victim’s deposition, the period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of protecting the fairness of the proceedings through appropriate conditions.

The Court noted that although the victim had objected to the applicant’s release during video-conferencing, her evidence before the trial court indicated that she had not supported the prosecution case and had denied the suggestions put by the public prosecutor.

The Court also considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 23 January 2026 and that the trial was likely to take some time to conclude.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court found these circumstances sufficient to make the applicant eligible for bail, subject to safeguards against witness intimidation, interference with the investigation, or prejudice to a fair and expeditious trial.

The High Court directed that he be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions that he make himself available for police interrogation when required, refrain from inducing, threatening, or promising any person 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 determination on the merits.