Bail should ordinarily be denied in serious offences once trial commences, absent undue delay.

The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 21 of 2025, registered at Women Police Station, Chamba, for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the minor prosecutrix left her home on 27 May 2025, met the petitioner at Chamba, and accompanied him to Chandigarh on the assurance of employment, where she was allegedly sexually assaulted.

The prosecutrix’s date of birth was recorded as 23 May 2009, making her approximately 16 years old at the relevant time.

The petitioner was arrested, the challan was filed, and the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 on 23 May 2026; the remaining prosecution evidence was scheduled for 30 September 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on post-arrest bail under Section 483 BNSS, considering his period of incarceration, the filing of the challan, and the progress of the trial.

2. Whether the alleged consent or voluntary accompaniment of the minor prosecutrix could support the grant of bail at this stage.

3. Whether the stage of the trial and the examination of the prosecutrix justified the High Court in examining the alleged discrepancies in her testimony for purposes of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, along with the offences alleged under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(M) BNS and Section 6 POCSO Act.

Since the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, any alleged consent or voluntary accompaniment was not treated as legally determinative at the bail stage.

Relying on X v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/1267/2024, the Court held that in serious offences such as rape, once the trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses are being examined, courts should ordinarily be slow to entertain bail applications; bail should not ordinarily be granted by assessing minor discrepancies in the victim’s deposition, unless the trial is unduly delayed without fault of the accused.

The Court also considered Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, which recognises that prolonged incarceration and the impossibility of a timely trial may justify bail, but distinguished it where the trial has commenced and is progressing without undue delay.

The Court found that the prosecutrix was approximately 16 years old and therefore below the age at which consent could have legal significance in the alleged sexual offence.

Although the petitioner argued that she had accompanied him voluntarily, that contention did not materially assist him at the bail stage.

The Court noted that the challan had been filed, the prosecutrix had already been examined, and the remaining prosecution evidence had been scheduled, with no material indicating that the trial was being unnecessarily or inordinately delayed.

It also found no glaring discrepancy in the prosecutrix’s testimony and observed that she had not resiled from her earlier statement.

Applying the principle in X v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that granting bail by reassessing the victim’s testimony during the ongoing trial could prejudice the prosecution and affect the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.

The prolonged custody, therefore, did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing progress of the trial.

However, the trial court was directed to examine the remaining witnesses expeditiously and endeavour to list the trial on a day-to-day basis, subject to the court’s convenience and docket.