Karnataka HC Grants Bail To POCSO Accused After Both Victims Turn Hostile; Trial May Take Time

The petitioner, Accused No. 1, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Special Case No. 223/2025 arising from Crime No. 12/2025 of Harugeri Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and another accused, after meeting the victims and exchanging contact details, committed sexual offences against them on 3 January 2025.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

At the time of the bail application, the evidence of both victims had been recorded; both had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s allegations.

The prosecution submitted that other witnesses remained to be examined.

The Court considered Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the provisions invoked for regular bail.

It stated that bail requires consideration of the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, the accused’s position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of absconding or reoffending, the possibility of witness tampering, and the accused’s character and antecedents.

It also reiterated that a bail court should not conduct a mini-trial by scrutinising the prosecution case in detail.

The Court noted that a coordinate Bench had granted bail to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a related petition.

The Court relied on the recorded evidence of both victims, who had turned hostile and denied the prosecution’s allegations of aggravated and penetrative sexual assault.

Although the State pointed out that other witnesses remained to be examined, the Court considered that the trial could take considerable time and concluded, on the material before it, that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences.

Applying the stated bail factors and noting the bail granted to the co-accused, the Court found the petitioner entitled to bail, subject to conditions protecting the prosecution process.

The petitioner was directed not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, to attend the trial court as required, and not to involve himself in similar or other offences; breach of any condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition.