01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being arrested in Crime No. 215/2026 for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that the applicant sexually assaulted the minor victim and later continued a physical relationship with her, resulting in pregnancy.
¶ 2The applicant submitted that the victim and her mother had been examined at trial and did not support the prosecution; he had been in custody since 21 May 2026, and trial was likely to take time.
¶ 3The State opposed bail on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations.
¶ 4The victim’s mother also expressed no objection to bail.
¶ 502Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the victim’s and her mother’s testimony at trial, the applicant’s custody, and the anticipated duration of the trial.
¶ 3–7ii.2. Whether the gravity of the alleged offences warranted refusing bail despite those circumstances.
¶ 4, 703Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail. In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the trial evidence recorded to date, the period of custody, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.
¶ 7The offences alleged were under Sections 137(2), 87 and 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
¶ 1Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137Section 87Section 65
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4Section 6
04Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations involving sexual assault of a minor and pregnancy, but balanced that consideration against the fact that the victim and her mother had already testified and did not support the prosecution; the victim denied the allegations.
¶ 7It also considered the mother’s no-objection, the applicant’s custody since 21 May 2026, and the likelihood of delay before trial concludes.
¶ 5, 7On those circumstances, without expressing any view on the merits, the Court found that the applicant deserved bail.
¶ 705Holding
The bail application was allowed.
¶ 8The applicant was ordered to be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
¶ 8He must not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the case facts; must not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and must attend every trial-court date until disposal of the case.
¶ 8(i)–(iii)Original Court PDF
KAILASH @ BINNUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
