Bail granted where victim’s testimony lacks elements of inducement and trial is significantly delayed.

The applicant, a 26-year-old driver, was arrested on October 21, 2024, for allegedly kidnapping and committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim (aged 17 years and 2 months).

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, after his first application (M.Cr.C. No. 45948/2025) was dismissed on October 28, 2025, with a direction to the trial court to expedite proceedings under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

At the time of this application, the applicant had undergone one year and five months of incarceration, and only ten prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The victim (PW-2) testified that she left her parental home voluntarily and contacted the applicant to meet her.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, considering the testimony of the victim and the delay in trial proceedings.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted given the prima facie absence of inducement or force in the commission of the alleged offense.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive charges were framed under Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping), 64(2)(m) (Punishment for rape), and 95 (Indecent assault/criminal force) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Sections 5l and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

The Court also referenced Section 35 of the POCSO Act, which mandates the timely conclusion of trials involving child victims.

The Court analyzed the evidence of the victim (PW-2) and her parents (PW-1 and PW-3), noting that the element of inducement, enticement, or compulsion appeared prima facie missing from the victim's testimony.

The Court observed that the victim admitted to leaving her home of her own volition and calling the applicant.

The Court found the trial's progress unsatisfactory; despite a previous order to expedite, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

Given that the material prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the Court determined there was no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The Court also took into account the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, his socio-economic status as a driver, and his responsibility toward his family, concluding there was no risk of recidivism or flight.

The Court held that since the material witnesses had been examined and the victim's testimony suggested a lack of force, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance, no involvement in similar offenses, and no contact with prosecution witnesses.