Hostile witnesses and lack of incriminating evidence warrant bail in alleged minor sexual assault case.

The applicant, a 26-year-old labourer, was arrested on July 30, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 358 of 2025 at Police Station Bajna, District Ratlam.

He was accused of kidnapping a minor victim (aged approximately 16 years and 7 months) and committing penetrative sexual assault.

During the trial, material prosecution witnesses—including the victim (PW1), her father (PW2), and her mother (PW3)—deposed that the victim was approximately 20 years old at the time of the incident and did not support the allegations of force or inducement.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, asserting a consensual romantic relationship and false implication due to family pressure.

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the hostile testimony of material witnesses and the lack of criminal antecedents.

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

It also considered the penal provisions of Sections 65(1) (punishment for rape), 64(2)(m) (aggravated sexual assault), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 5L/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The court adhered to the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the veracity of the prosecution's case is prima facie undermined by witness testimony during trial.

The court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2, and PW3) turned hostile, with the victim specifically denying any misdeed, force, or compulsion by the applicant.

The court noted a significant discrepancy regarding the victim's age, as the witnesses claimed she was an adult (20 years) at the time of the incident, casting doubt on the POCSO charges.

Furthermore, the court found that since the applicant is a labourer with family responsibilities and no criminal record, there was no significant risk of him fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing remaining witnesses.

It concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the trial would take time to resolve the remaining factual disputes regarding the victim's age and the applicant's complicity.

The grant of bail is subject to conditions including regular court attendance, refraining from committing similar offences, and not influencing witnesses.

The court held that while the allegations were grave, the evidentiary shifts during the trial and the applicant’s socio-economic status warranted his release.