Bail granted where the victim’s statement lacked specific assault allegations and medical evidence was absent.

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 17, 4, 6 and 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The complaint alleged that he had developed a sexual relationship with the victim, who was about 16 years old at the time of the alleged offences in 2024.

The petitioner was arrested, and, by the time of the bail hearing, the investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed.

The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and the medical evidence were disputed by the parties.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as identified in the order.

It applied the general bail considerations of the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, risk of absconding or reoffending, possibility of witness tampering, and the accused’s character and antecedents.

The Court also stated that a bail hearing should not become a mini-trial or involve a full assessment of the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the victim was a minor when the alleged offences occurred, but found that her Section 183 BNSS statement, as considered at the bail stage, did not specifically allege that the petitioner had committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault.

It also observed that the medical examination took place about nine months after the incident, that no samples or relevant body evidence had been collected, and that the medical material did not provide support for a definite allegation of the specified assaults.

Considering these matters alongside the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the Court concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences.

It addressed the prosecution’s concern about interference with witnesses by imposing conditions against threatening or tampering with them.

Conditions included not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, attending court as required, and not involving himself in similar or other offences; breach could result in an application for cancellation of bail.