Hostile testimony of victim and parents warrants bail in POCSO case involving romantic relationship and no criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Santosh (aged 20), was accused of kidnapping a minor victim (aged 16 years and 11 months) and subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault.

Crime No. 571/2025 was registered at Police Station Raoti, District Ratlam.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since November 24, 2025.

This first bail application was moved following the examination of material prosecution witnesses—the victim (PW-1) and her father (PW-2)—during the trial.

Both material witnesses failed to support the prosecution’s accusations.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the hostile testimony of material witnesses and the duration of his incarceration.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 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(2)(m) (Rape by a person in a position of trust or dominance), and 87 (Inducement) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5(l)/6 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The court also referenced the procedural mandate of Section 309 of the CrPC / Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the expeditious examination of witnesses.

The court observed that the victim (PW-1) and her father (PW-2) did not support the prosecution’s case during their examination before the Trial Court.

It noted the applicant’s contention that the matter arose from a romantic relationship and that the mother of the victim suggested the victim was a major at the time of the incident.

The court evaluated the applicant’s socio-economic status as a young laborer with no prior criminal antecedents and found no evidence suggesting a likelihood of recidivism or that the applicant would flee from justice.

Since the material witnesses had already been examined, the court determined there was no risk of tempering with essential evidence.

It concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the trial would take time and the applicant had established deep roots in the community.

The holding is contingent upon conditions including regular attendance at hearings, non-commission of similar offences, and a prohibition against inducing or threatening witnesses.

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