Bail warranted where the victim could not identify the assailant and CCTV footage did not clearly capture the incident.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a case registered under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The allegation was that he touched the minor victim’s back inappropriately at a village grocery shop on 14 April 2026; he was arrested the following day and remained in custody.

The applicant relied on the shop’s CCTV footage, which he submitted did not clearly show the alleged act, and on his lack of criminal antecedents and the anticipated duration of the trial.

The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and the nature of the allegation.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the circumstances and material on record.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court applied its bail discretion by considering the circumstances of the alleged incident, the material on record, the period of custody, the applicant’s antecedents, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

The Court considered the victim’s cross-examination, in which she stated that it was dark, the small shop was crowded, she could not identify who touched her, she did not raise an alarm or tell the shopkeeper or others present, and she could not state the date of the incident.

It also considered that the CCTV footage did not clearly depict the alleged act and that the Sessions Court had noted that the incident was not visible in the footage.

Along with the applicant’s custody since 15 April 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in concluding the trial, these circumstances supported release on bail; the Court expressly refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits.

The applicant was required not to influence or threaten persons acquainted with the case, not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and to attend each hearing until the trial’s disposal.