Denial of bail in serious sexual offenses involving minors despite delay in FIR and witness contradictions.

The applicants filed first bail applications following their arrest on 31.07.2025.

The prosecution alleges that on 08.07.2025, the applicants entered the complainants' house in the absence of Victim No. 1’s husband.

Applicant Rakesh Prajapati allegedly committed forcible rape on Victim No. 2 (a minor aged 15-16), while applicant Dinesh Kumar allegedly molested Victim No. 1.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 29.07.2025.

The applicants contended that there was an unexplained 21-day delay in filing the FIR, lack of proof regarding the minor's age, and contradictions in the testimony of Victim No. 1.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of sexual assault and the procedural stage of the trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC), governing the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The substantive charges were considered under Sections 70(B) (Gang rape/punishment for rape), 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which provide stringent penalties for sexual assault against minors.

The Court weighed the applicants' arguments regarding the delay in FIR and lack of age documentation against the gravity of the offences and the statements of the victims.

It noted that while Victim No. 1 had been examined and allegedly showed contradictions, Victim No. 2 (the minor) had supported the prosecution in her Section 183 BNSS statement but had yet to testify before the Trial Court.

Furthermore, both victims and their guardians appeared via video conferencing to formally object to the bail.

The Court determined that the gravity of the offence and the necessity of protecting the testimony of the remaining "important witnesses" outweighed the applicants' period of incarceration.

However, noting that the applicants had been in jail since July 2025 and only one out of thirteen witnesses had been examined, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial within five months.

The applications under Section 483 BNSS were dismissed.