Hostile testimony of victim and age disputes warrant grant of bail in POCSO and BNS sexual offence cases.

The applicant, a 25-year-old labourer, was accused of kidnapping and committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim (allegedly aged 16).

Following an investigation into Crime No. 817/2025 at Police Station Gorakhpur, the applicant was arrested on 15.12.2025.

During the trial, the victim (PW-2) and her paternal grandmother (PW-1) turned hostile, claiming the victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident and denying any force or enticement by the applicant.

The applicant subsequently filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the hostile testimony of material prosecution witnesses regarding the victim's age and consent.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted given his lack of criminal antecedents and the projected duration of the trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power to grant bail.

Sections 137(2) (kidnapping), 87 (provisions related to consent/age), and 64(2)(m) (rape/aggravated sexual assault) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 3/4 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Procedural mandate for witness examination under Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.).

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged a grave offence involving a minor, the material evidence recorded during the trial significantly weakened the case.

Specifically, the victim (PW-2) did not support the allegations of "enticement, compulsion or force" and claimed she was an adult at the time of the incident.

The determination of the victim's age remains a trial stage issue, but the Court noted that the "prima-facie merit" of the applicant's defense could not be dismissed.

Since material witnesses had already been examined, the Court found a reduced risk of evidence tampering.

Furthermore, the applicant's socio-economic status as a labourer and his clean criminal record suggested low risks of recidivism or fleeing from justice.

The application was allowed, and the Court directed the release of Deepak Vanshkar upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings and non-interference with witnesses.