Hostility of victim and material witnesses during trial justifies grant of bail in POCSO cases.

The applicant, Dharmendra Mali (aged 26), was arrested on November 6, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 456 of 2023 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam.

He was accused of kidnapping a minor victim (aged approximately 15 years and 7 months) and engaging in penetrative sexual relations.

Charges were brought under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5L/6, 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

During the trial, the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) were examined and did not support the prosecution's case, effectively exonerating the applicant.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the hostile testimony of material witnesses and the duration of his judicial custody.

2. Whether there is a prima facie case of enticement or force, and if continued incarceration is necessary given the applicant's socio-economic background and lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Sessions to grant bail.

Penal provisions of Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5L/6, 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Established bail principles, including the absence of criminal antecedents, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

The Court's reasoning centered on the evidentiary shift during the trial proceedings, noting that the material prosecution witnesses—the victim and her mother—had already been examined and did not support the prosecution's allegations, thereby reducing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The Court found that, prima facie, the elements of force, compulsion, or enticement were missing from the evidence.

The Court evaluated the applicant's personal circumstances: he is a 26-year-old laborer with no prior criminal record and significant family responsibilities, which mitigated concerns regarding recidivism or fleeing from justice.

The Court concluded that the veracity of the victim’s age and the applicant’s complicity are matters to be determined at the finality of the trial, and there was no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The applicant, Dharmendra Mali, was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to specific conditions including regular court appearances and prohibitions on committing similar offences or threatening witnesses.