Bail granted where the victim did not support prosecution, co-accused secured bail, and trial was delayed.

The appellants, Dhankunwar Yadav and Laxmi Mahant @ Muskan, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 305/2025 registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 70(1) and 127(61) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 31 October 2025, the victim was taken on the pretext of being provided jewellery, clothes, and employment. She was allegedly taken first to the house of appellant Laxmi Mahant and thereafter to the house of appellant Dhankunwar Yadav, where co-accused Pradeep Nirala and Jhankeshwar Chandra allegedly confined and sexually assaulted her, with the present appellants allegedly assisting the commission of the offence.

Dhankunwar Yadav’s first bail application had earlier been dismissed on 23 March 2026, when the trial had not commenced.

The co-accused Pradeep Nirala and Jhankeshwar Chandra, stated to be the principal offenders, were subsequently granted bail by the High Court on 28 July 2026.

Both appellants had remained in custody since 14 December 2025.

During the present proceedings, the victim, accompanied by her mother, appeared through video conferencing and expressed no objection to the appellants being released on bail.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the FIR allegations and the evidence of the victim’s father that she was mentally disturbed.

Whether the appellants were entitled to regular bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, notwithstanding the allegations under the BNS and the SC/ST Act?

Whether the appellants’ prolonged detention, the victim’s statement and no-objection to bail, the grant of bail to the principal co-accused, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified their release on bail?

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction arising from Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act and the offences alleged under Sections 70(1) and 127(61) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

The governing principle applied was that bail may be granted after assessing the material circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s period of custody, the probable duration of the trial, the conduct and statements of the victim, and parity with similarly placed co-accused; such consideration is undertaken without expressing a final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the victim had not supported the prosecution case in her court statement and had, along with her mother, expressed no objection to the appellants’ release on bail.

It further considered that the co-accused described as the main perpetrators had already been granted bail, making the principle of parity relevant.

The appellants had been in custody since 14 December 2025, and the Court found that the trial was likely to take additional time.

Although the State relied upon the FIR and the victim’s father’s statement regarding her mental condition, the Court concluded that these circumstances did not outweigh the victim’s court statement, her no-objection, the period of detention, the grant of bail to the principal co-accused, and the anticipated delay in trial.

The Court clarified that its assessment was confined to bail and did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.

The appellants were directed to be released on bail upon executing personal bonds of ₹25,000 each with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to their appearance before that Court as and when directed.