Bail was justified where the accused’s alleged role was limited to accompanying the co-accused in taking the minor.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 83/2026, registered for offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the principal accused, Sandeep Tandan, had physical relations with the minor victim on a promise of marriage. The applicant and co-accused Polaram Tandan allegedly went to the victim’s village and took her, then aged 14 years and 5 months, from her parents’ lawful guardianship.

The applicant asserted false implication, lack of a substantial role, no criminal antecedents, and continued custody since 11 March 2026; the State opposed bail on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s alleged participation.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to his alleged role, the material on record, and the circumstances of the case.

Whether bail should be refused because of the seriousness of the alleged offences and the applicant’s alleged participation in taking the minor from her guardianship.

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s powers to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 87 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the material on record, the applicant’s alleged role, and his custody and antecedents.

No precedent was cited.

The Court distinguished the principal allegation of sexual relations on a promise of marriage, which was directed against Sandeep Tandan, from the applicant’s alleged role of accompanying Polaram Tandan in taking the victim from her village.

It noted that no specific allegation implicated the applicant in having physical relations with the victim or inducing her through a promise of marriage. Considering this limited alleged role, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the applicant’s custody since 11 March 2026, the Court found bail appropriate, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

It directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the case, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial Court until disposal of the trial.