Bail may be denied when prosecution evidence is complete and trial disposal is imminent.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences under Sections 74, 75(ii) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution alleged that on 4 June 2026 the petitioner touched the victim, offered her ₹500 to sleep with him, and attempted to drag her.

His earlier bail petition had been dismissed, with liberty to renew it after examination of the victim and other material witnesses.

The petitioner renewed his application after the prosecution evidence had been recorded; the victim had supported the prosecution case, and the trial was listed for recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC.

He also relied on his mother’s ill-health and his period in custody.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail, and the alleged offences under Sections 74, 75(ii) and 78 of the BNS and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

It applied the principle that a successive bail petition requires changed circumstances before it may be considered.

The Court also noted that the previous order had permitted a renewed application after examination of the victim and other material witnesses.

Although the prosecution evidence had concluded, the victim had supported the prosecution, the trial was at the stage of recording the accused’s statement, and the matter was expected to be decided in the near future. The Court therefore found that the progress of the trial did not justify bail at that stage.

It also held that the medical material showed the petitioner’s mother had received outpatient treatment and did not establish that his presence was necessary to care for her.

The petitioner’s custody of approximately three and a half months and the stated maximum punishment of five years did not, in the circumstances, warrant release while the trial was at its fag end.

The Court further concluded that no sufficient changed circumstance justified the successive application.

It directed that its observations should not influence the trial court’s determination of the case on its merits.