Omission from the charge sheet, coupled with no need for continued detention, justified bail.

The petitioner was named as Accused No. 1 in the FIR arising from Crime No. 2/2026 of the DCRE Police Station, Bidar, alleging offences under Sections 78, 79, 64 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the complaint and the victim’s statement before the Magistrate, which allegedly described the petitioner’s involvement.

The petitioner submitted that, following investigation and consideration of the victim’s statements and DNA evidence, the police had not included him as an accused in the charge sheet; he had been in custody since 21 January 2026.

The Investigating Officer informed the Court that the victim’s statements contained contradictions and that the DNA report was negative in respect of the petitioner.

The victim’s mother, the second respondent, did not appear to contest the petition despite notice.

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail despite the allegations in the complaint and the victim’s statement before the Magistrate.

2. Whether continued detention was justified where the charge sheet did not arraign the petitioner as an accused and the Investigating Officer reported a negative DNA result.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to the alleged offences under Sections 78, 79, 64 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

It applied the principle that bail may be granted subject to appropriate conditions where, in the circumstances presented, continued custody is not shown to be necessary; apprehensions concerning further investigation, witness tampering or interference with trial may be addressed by conditions.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged that the victim’s statement before the Magistrate contained a specific allegation against the petitioner concerning an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and that the alleged offences were serious.

However, it also considered the Investigating Officer’s account of contradictions in the victim’s statements and the negative DNA report, and noted that the petitioner had not been arraigned in the charge sheet.

Although further investigation could be undertaken with the trial court’s prior permission, the Court held that the petitioner’s continued detention was not justified at that stage, and that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.

Conditions included attendance before the trial court, non-interference with witnesses or the trial, appearance before the Investigating Officer if required for further investigation, and refraining from committing similar or other offences while the case was pending; breach could result in an application for cancellation of bail.