Completion of investigation and absence of POCSO charges supported conditional bail despite serious allegations.

The petitioner, a teacher, was accused of forcibly embracing and kissing a student and attempting to rape her on 7 June 2026, while she was sitting a NEET test; he was also alleged to have threatened her.

The case was initially registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act.

The investigation established that the victim was born on 17 April 2008 and was over 18 on the incident date; the POCSO charges were therefore omitted from the charge sheet.

After an earlier bail petition had been rejected, the petitioner renewed his application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

By then, the charge sheet had been filed and he had been in judicial custody for more than three and a half months.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS, given that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the POCSO charges had been dropped.

Whether the prosecution’s concerns about witness tampering and interference with the trial could be addressed through bail conditions.

The Court considered its power to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS and the offences charged under Sections 64 read with Sections 62, 75 and 351(2) of the BNS.

It applied the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and that pre-trial detention should not operate as punishment for the alleged offence.

The Court also treated the completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet as relevant to whether further custodial interrogation was required.

The Court noted that the earlier bail rejection had been made when the case included POCSO offences, but the subsequent investigation showed that the victim was over 18 and those offences were omitted from the charge sheet.

Although the allegations remained serious and the prosecution raised concerns about the petitioner’s position as a teacher and the risk of witness tampering, the investigation was complete and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

The Court concluded that the identified risks could be addressed by stringent conditions, including a prohibition on contacting the victim.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation and trial, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, no contact with the victim, and no commission of similar or other offences while the case was pending; breach would result in cancellation of bail.