Grant of bail where material witnesses' cross-examination suggests possible tutoring and lack of recidivism risk.

The applicant, a 52-year-old government teacher, was arrested on July 26, 2025, following an FIR lodged at Police Station Jharda, Ujjain.

It was alleged that on June 18, 2025, the applicant called three minor victims (approx. 13 years old) to the school library and touched them inappropriately, threatening them with death.

Charges were framed under Sections 74, 75(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); Sections 11(v), 12, 9C, 9F, and 10 of the POCSO Act; and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

This is the applicant's second bail application after the first was withdrawn in October 2025.

The trial is underway, and the three primary victims (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3) have already been examined.

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

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given his socio-economic status and the lack of flight risk or potential for witness tampering.

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

It considered the principles governing judicial discretion in bail matters, specifically the gravity of the offence, the length of custody, the risk of recidivism, the socioeconomic status of the accused, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing justice.

The court also noted Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The court observed that the applicant has been in custody since July 26, 2025, and the investigation is complete.

Although the prosecution opposed bail citing the gravity of the offence and criminal antecedents, the court noted that the applicant was acquitted in one past case (Crime No. 249/2010) and had no prior convictions.

Crucially, the court found that the cross-examination of the three victims (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) prima facie suggested the possibility of the defense's theory—that the allegations might have been tutored by local elements to facilitate a different teacher's posting.

The court reasoned that since material witnesses have already testified, there is no immediate risk of the applicant influencing the remaining evidence.

Given his status as a government teacher with family responsibilities, the court found no compelling reason to justify further incarceration.

The applicant is ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to strict conditions: including appearance at all hearings, non-participation in similar offences, and no direct or indirect tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The court clarified that the observations made were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.