Hostile Testimony of Material Witnesses and Doubtful Age Determination Warrant Grant of Bail in POCSO Proceedings

The applicant, Ratan Ahirwar, was arrested on June 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 255/2025 at Police Station Ghamapur, Jabalpur.

He was charged with kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and penetrative sexual assault of a minor under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(1), 64(2)(m), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Sections 3, 4(2), and 5L/6 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant filed this second bail application after his first was dismissed as withdrawn on January 6, 2026.

During the trial, the victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), and her father (PW-3) were examined and failed to support the prosecution's case, stating the victim was a major at the time of the incident.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the changed circumstances regarding witness testimony and the length of incarceration.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.) regarding the High Court's special powers to grant bail.

Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the expeditious conduct of trials.

The principles of "innocent until proven guilty," the lack of criminal antecedents, and the socio-economic status of the applicant to determine the risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses (the victim and her parents) had already been examined and did not support the accusation, effectively exonerating the applicant in their testimony.

The Court found that there was no prima-facie evidence of inducement, enticement, or force in the victim's testimony and that the victim’s age was now a matter of dispute.

Given the applicant's status as a laborer with family responsibilities, the Court reasoned there was no significant risk of him fleeing from justice, tampering with remaining evidence, or influencing witnesses.

The Court concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the trial would take time to conclude and jail was causing undue hardship.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount with specific conditions were imposed, including mandatory attendance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a strict bar against inducing or threatening anyone acquainted with the facts of the case.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and the final determination of the victim's age and the applicant's guilt remains a matter for the trial.