Completed investigation, the victim’s voluntary departure, and likely trial delay supported bail in a POCSO case.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a pending POCSO case alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 64(m) and 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and the minor victim travelled together to Bengaluru, where sexual intercourse occurred.

The petitioner contended that the victim had accompanied him voluntarily, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The State and the victim’s representative opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement and medical evidence.

The petitioner was in judicial custody; the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail while facing trial for the alleged BNS and POCSO offences

2. Whether the circumstances—including the petitioner’s custody, completion of investigation, and expected duration of trial—justified release on bail subject to conditions

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 137(2), 64(m) and 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court applied its discretion to assess the circumstances relevant to bail, including the material on record, the petitioner’s custody, the status of the investigation, the anticipated duration of trial, and the risks addressed by bail conditions.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the victim was a minor, and considered her statement describing the relationship and the sexual encounter, as well as the medical opinion that there were no signs suggestive of a recent sexual act.

It also took into account that the petitioner had been in judicial custody, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial could take considerable time.

Given the petitioner’s stated permanent residence and willingness to comply with conditions, the Court found that release on bail with safeguards was appropriate.

Bail was subject to conditions that he not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, attend the trial court as required, and not commit similar or other offences; breach could be grounds for seeking cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to disposal of the bail petition.