In serious POCSO cases, prolonged custody and partial trial progress alone do not justify bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Crime No. 545/2022 registered at Police Station Barela, District Jabalpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC and Sections 5(k) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

He had been in custody since 29 September 2022. This was his fourth bail application; the earlier applications had been rejected or withdrawn, with the third application dismissed on 29 July 2025.

According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix, aged approximately 17 years and stated to be mentally challenged, frequently visited the applicant’s nearby house.

The FIR was lodged approximately five months after the alleged occurrence, on 29 September 2022.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of his prolonged custody, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and examination of five prosecution witnesses?

Whether the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant’s defence of false implication, and his claim of absence from the place of occurrence constituted sufficient grounds for granting bail?

Whether the seriousness of the allegations involving a minor and allegedly mentally challenged prosecutrix, along with the possibility of influencing witnesses, justified rejection of the fourth bail application?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS/Section 439 of the CrPC governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged conduct attracted Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC concerning rape of a woman suffering from mental or physical disability, and Sections 5(k) and 6 of the POCSO Act concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a child who is mentally or physically disabled and the punishment for that offence.

The Court reiterated that, at the bail stage, it must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the stage of trial, the possibility of influencing or threatening witnesses, and the applicant’s criminal-procedural history, without undertaking a detailed appreciation of evidence or recording a finding on guilt.

A disputed defence such as false implication or alibi is ordinarily a matter for trial, and delay in lodging the FIR is not, by itself, conclusive at the bail stage where its explanation requires evidentiary assessment.

The Court acknowledged the applicant’s prolonged custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that five prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined.

However, these circumstances did not outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offences, particularly because the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and was stated to be mentally challenged, thereby attracting the stringent POCSO provisions.

The applicant’s assertions of false implication and absence from the place of occurrence involved disputed factual questions requiring assessment by the Trial Court and could not be conclusively determined in bail proceedings.

Similarly, the five-month delay in lodging the FIR required appreciation of the prosecutrix’s condition, the circumstances in which the allegation came to light, and the surrounding evidence; it was therefore not treated as a sufficient ground for bail.

The Court also found the State’s apprehension that the applicant might influence the prosecutrix, her family, or remaining witnesses to be not wholly unfounded.

The prolonged custody, filing of the charge-sheet, examination of five witnesses, and alleged delay in the FIR did not justify release in view of the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the prosecutrix, the pending trial, and the risk of interference with the remaining prosecution evidence.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the fourth bail application was dismissed.