Bail granted where victim exonerates accused and claims majority in her trial testimony.

The applicant was arrested on October 17, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 500/2023 registered at Police Station Bajna, District Ratlam

He was charged under Sections 363 (Kidnapping), 366-A (Procuration of minor girl), and 376(2)(n) (Repeated sexual assault) of the IPC, alongside Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act, for the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault of a victim recorded as 16 years and 5 months old

During the trial, the victim (PW-1) was examined and turned hostile, stating she was 19 years old at the time of the incident and denying any force, enticement, or compulsion by the applicant

The applicant, a 25-year-old laborer with no prior criminal record, sought his first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that the material prosecution witness (the victim) did not support the prosecution's case

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted considering his socio-economic status, lack of criminal antecedents, and the current stage of the trial

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC), governing the power of the High Court to grant bail

It further considered the principles of witness examination under Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 of the CrPC)

The Court relied on the legal standard that bail may be granted if there is a lack of prima facie evidence of compulsion, no risk of tampering with remaining evidence, and no likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or committing recidivism

The Court analyzed the deposition of the victim (PW-1) and observed that she had exonerated the applicant of all accusations, claiming majority (19 years) and denying any element of kidnapping or forceful assault

Justice Kalgaonkar noted that since the material witness had already been examined, the possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing the case's outcome was minimal

The Court weighed the gravity of the offense against the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has family responsibilities

It determined that the veracity of the prosecution's claims and the actual age of the victim are matters for the final trial, but for the purpose of bail, the applicant’s contentions held prima facie merit

The Court held that continued incarceration was unnecessary given the hostile testimony of the victim and the applicant's clean record

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance, refraining from similar offenses, and not tampering with any remaining evidence