Material witnesses exonerating the accused and disputing the victim's minority warrants grant of bail.

The applicant, a 19-year-old labourer, was accused of kidnapping a purportedly minor victim (aged 13) and committing penetrative sexual assault.

Crime No. 255/2024 was registered for offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant was arrested and remained in custody from February 22, 2025.

During the trial, the material prosecution witnesses—comprising the victim (PW-2), her father (PW-1), and her mother (PW-3)—testified that the victim was 20 years old at the time of the incident and did not support the prosecution’s allegations of force or instigation.

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the material prosecution witnesses turning hostile regarding the age and consent of the victim.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted given his socio-economic status and the lack of criminal antecedents.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail.

The court considered the penal provisions of Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The court also referenced Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the CrPC) regarding the procedural requirement for the examination of witnesses in attendance.

Principle that bail may be granted when the veracity of the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by the evidence of material witnesses and where there is no risk of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses—the victim and her parents—had not only failed to support the prosecution's case but had explicitly exonerated the applicant.

They testified that the victim was an adult (20 years old) at the time of the incident, thereby creating a prima facie doubt regarding the victim's minority and the allegation of sexual assault without consent.

The Court reasoned that since the material witnesses had already been examined, the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing the case was significantly diminished.

Furthermore, the Court took into account the applicant’s youth (19 years), his profession as a labourer, his lack of criminal history, and his socio-economic vulnerability, concluding that there was no compelling reason to justify continued pre-trial incarceration.

The Court ordered that Prabhulal Meena be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount subject to specific conditions, including regular appearance before the trial court, refraining from committing further offences, and ensuring compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding witness examination.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not affect the final merits of the trial.