01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 320/2025, registered for offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that he sexually assaulted the victim, then aged about 14 years and 3 months, on the pretext of marriage.
¶ 3His earlier bail application had been withdrawn.
¶ 2At the hearing of this second application, the victim and her mother opposed bail.
¶ 4The applicant submitted that the victim, her father and her mother had been examined at trial and had not supported the prosecution; he also asserted that the victim was over 18 at the time of the incident.
¶ 5He had been in custody since 4 December 2025.
¶ 502Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the prosecution allegations and the circumstances emerging at trial.
¶ 1, 5–8ii.2. Whether the victim’s and her parents’ evidence at trial, their having not supported the prosecution, the applicant’s period in custody, and the likely time required to conclude the trial justified release on bail.
¶ 803Law Applied
The Court considered its power to grant regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.
¶ 1It also noted the offences charged under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS, Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
¶ 1The order cites no precedent; it applies the bail power to the circumstances of the case, without expressing a view on the merits.
¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483Section 84Section 351
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137Section 64Section 65Section 269Section 209
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4Section 6
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
04Reasoning
In assessing bail, the Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s objection against the fact that the victim and both her parents had been examined and had not supported the prosecution, and that the victim had denied the Public Prosecutor’s suggestions.
¶ 4, 6, 8It also considered the applicant’s custody since 4 December 2025 and that the trial was likely to take time.
¶ 8On those combined circumstances, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.
¶ 805Holding
The Court allowed the application and directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
¶ 9Bail was subject to conditions concerning adjournments when witnesses are present, attendance before the trial court, compliance with proceedings following a proclamation, and personal appearance on specified trial dates.
¶ 9(i)–(iv)Original Court PDF
KAUSHAL CHANDRAVANSHIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
