Hostile Testimony by Victim and Parents Negates Prima Facie Case for Continued Incarceration in POCSO Proceedings

The applicant, a 19-year-old labourer, was arrested on November 13, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 833/2025 charged with kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault of a minor under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), and 64(2)(M) of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5(l), and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant moved this first bail application contending that the case involved a romantic relationship and that the victim (PW/1) and her parents (PW/2 & PW/3) had exonerated him during trial testimony, claiming the victim was a major.

The State opposed bail based on the gravity of the offence but conceded the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the hostile testimony of the victim and her parents.

2. Whether there exists a risk of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence if released.

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.

Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC) regarding the evidentiary weight of statements and the absence of force or inducement.

The principle that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as punishment, especially where the trial is ongoing and the applicant has family roots and no criminal history.

The court observed that while the prosecution alleged the victim was a minor (15 years), the victim and her parents did not support the prosecution's case during their examination in the Trial Court.

The court noted that a prima facie perusal of the victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS did not reveal elements of inducement, compulsion, or force.

The court highlighted the applicant's youth (19 years), his socio-economic status as a labourer, his clean past, and his dependence on family in evaluating the risk of recidivism or flight.

The court reasoned that since the determination of the victim's age and the veracity of the prosecution's case are matters for trial, and since there was no evidence that the applicant could influence witnesses or flee, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The holding is contingent upon five specific conditions, including regular attendance at hearings and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and do not reflect on the merits of the final trial.