### Grant of Bail Where Hostile Testimony by Minor Victim Negates Allegations of Enticement or Compulsion

The applicant, a 21-year-old student, was arrested on December 20, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 352/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant kidnapped a minor victim (aged approximately 17 years and 2 months) and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault.

The applicant contended that the matter involved a romantic relationship where the parties performed a marriage at a Vedic Samiti based on the victim's Class-X mark sheet.

Following the recording of testimony from the victim (PW1) and her parents (PW2 & PW3), the applicant moved the High Court for bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and the period of incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

The charges involved Sections 137(2) (kidnapping), 64(1) (rape), 64(2)(m), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 3/4, 5L/6, and 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Court also considered the procedural mandate of Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

The Court observed that the material prosecution witnesses—the victim and her parents—had already been examined, and notably, the victim did not allege any misdeed, inducement, or force against the applicant in her testimony.

The Court found prima facie merit in the applicant’s argument that the relationship appeared consensual or "romantic," which weakened the prosecution's allegations of enticement or compulsion at this stage.

Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant's status as a student with no substantial criminal past or prior convictions, suggesting a low risk of recidivism or witness tampering.

The Court reasoned that since the trial would take considerable time to conclude and the applicant's incarceration was causing hardship to his family, continued detention was unnecessary given the socio-economic status of the applicant and his likelihood of cooperating with the trial.

The Court held that there was no compelling reason to continue the incarceration of the young applicant as the veracity of the age of the victim and complicity of the applicant would be determined during the final trial.

The release is subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses.