### Grant of Bail to Accused in Possession of Child Pornography Lacking Evidence of Commercial Exploitation

The applicant, a 22-year-old labourer, was arrested on November 10, 2025, following "Operation Nayan," during which the NCMIC flagged a mobile number for transmitting obscene child pornography.

Upon apprehension, investigators found obscene photographs on the applicant's device, leading to charges under the BNS, POCSO Act, and IT Act.

The applicant filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, after his first application was withdrawn in December 2025.

The State opposed the bail, noting that the Mobile Forensic Report is still awaited.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering his socio-economic status, lack of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the evidence.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It also considered Section 238(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023; Section 15 of the POCSO Act (punishment for storage of child pornography); and Sections 66(E), 67(A), and 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (relating to privacy violations and transmission of sexually explicit material).

The court utilized the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, specifically evaluating the risk of recidivism, the likelihood of fleeing justice, and the socio-economic standing of the accused.

The court reasoned that while the charges involve the transmission of child pornography, there was no specific allegation that the applicant was involved in commercial child pornography.

Highlighting the applicant's background, the court noted he is a young labourer with no prior criminal record and deep family roots, reducing the likelihood of him evading the law or influencing witnesses.

Furthermore, the court observed that the trial would likely be protracted and that the veracity of the prosecution's claims would only be determined through evidence at trial.

Given that the investigation was largely complete and the applicant is a young individual whose incarceration causes hardship to dependents, the court found no compelling reason to continue his detention.

The court held that the applicant showed no signs of being a flight risk or a repeat offender.

The relief was granted subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings, non-interference with evidence or witnesses, and no involvement in similar future offences.