Inordinate trial delay and negative DNA report warrant bail despite gravity of POCSO allegations.

The applicant was arrested on 24.04.2025 for allegedly acting in collusion with a co-accused to commit indecent/sexual acts upon a two-year-old prosecutrix.

This is the applicant’s third bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS; the second was withdrawn with liberty to revive after the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded.

Despite this liberty, the prosecutrix and her parents failed to appear for evidence, necessitating the issuance of arrest warrants by the Trial Court.

Furthermore, the DNA report returned negative, and the co-accused committed suicide in December 2025.

The applicant has remained in custody since April 2025.

1. Whether the inordinate delay in the trial and the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses entitle the applicant to bail under the principle of the right to a speedy trial.

2. Whether continued pre-trial incarceration under the facts of the case violates the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial as an integral facet of the right to life.

The Court also applied the principle that pre-trial detention should not serve as punishment prior to conviction.

Additional charges involved Sections 65(2) and 70(2) of the BNS and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for nearly a year (since 24.04.2025) while the trial remained pending without significant progress.

It noted that the delay was attributable to the prosecution, as the victim’s family repeatedly failed to appear despite court orders and warrants.

The Court reasoned that since the DNA report was negative and the co-accused was deceased, the immediate necessity for continued detention was diminished.

By connecting these facts to Article 21, the Court held that the "constitutional guarantee stands diluted" when trial delays are unexplained and inordinate, as incarceration in such instances shifts from a procedural necessity to an unauthorized pre-trial punishment.

The High Court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant's release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The release is subject to strict conditions, including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and a prohibition on leaving the country without permission.