Bail was granted after charge-sheet filing where prolonged custody posed no absconding or witness-tampering risk.

The petitioners filed separate applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in Komna P.S. Case No. 378 of 2025, corresponding to S.A. No. 01 of 2026, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada

The case concerns alleged offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that both petitioners took away the victim and that Omkar @ Bunty Tandi committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon her.

The petitioners had remained in custody since 5 January 2026 and 30 January 2026, respectively, and the charge-sheet had been filed during their detention.

The informant/victim did not appear despite due intimation.

Whether the petitioners should be released on bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the period of pre-trial detention, filing of the charge-sheet, and the materials on record?

Whether the petitioners’ release on bail could be appropriately secured through conditions protecting the victim and witnesses from contact, intimidation, inducement, influence, or coercion?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the period of pre-trial custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the victim’s statement, the presumption of innocence until conviction, and the absence of material indicating that the accused would abscond or threaten witnesses.

The Court also imposed protective bail conditions prohibiting contact with or visitation to the victim and prohibiting threats, inducement, influence, or coercion of witnesses.

The Court balanced the serious nature of the alleged sexual offences against the circumstances favouring release on bail.

It noted that both petitioners had undergone pre-trial detention for several months, that the charge-sheet had already been submitted, and that the record—including the victim’s statement—did not justify continued detention at that stage.

The Court further found no material suggesting that the petitioners would abscond or pose a threat to witnesses, while reiterating that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that the risks associated with release could be addressed through stringent conditions protecting the victim and witnesses.

The petitioners were restrained from contacting the victim in any manner or visiting her residence until disposal of the case, and from threatening, inducing, influencing, or coercing any witness, including the victim’s family members acquainted with the facts of the case.

Both BLAPLs were accordingly disposed of, and the order was directed to be communicated electronically to the concerned court and jail authorities.