Prior romantic involvement, prolonged custody and trial delay can weigh in favour of bail in a POCSO case.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in a case arising from FIR No. 381/2023 registered under Sections 363, 368, 376, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”)

The victim, aged 14 years and 8 months at the time, initially stated that she had left home voluntarily and had no complaint against anyone; she later alleged that the applicant had sexually assaulted her

The applicant was aged 20 years and 4 months at the time of the incident

The prosecution evidence was underway: the victim and her father had completed their examination-in-chief, while 19 prosecution witnesses were listed.

The applicant had been in custody for approximately three years and two months, had no criminal antecedents, and the trial was expected to take time.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged offences under the IPC and POCSO Act

2. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicant—including the parties’ alleged romantic relationship, the victim’s initial statement, the applicant’s period in custody, and the anticipated duration of trial—tilted the balance in favour of bail

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the POCSO allegations, while applying the approach in Dharmender Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT), which identifies real-life factors relevant to post-charge bail in POCSO cases, including the ages of the victim and accused, their comparative ages, the alleged use of threats or violence, the accused’s conduct and access to the victim, and other circumstances bearing on the alleged offence and risk to the trial.

It also relied on Praduman v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, where the Court treated a pre-existing romantic relationship, the parties’ ages, and inconsistencies in statements as relevant mitigating considerations in deciding bail.

These considerations inform the bail decision; they do not determine the merits of the charges.

The Court noted the victim’s differing accounts, including her initial statement that she had left home of her own accord and had no complaint, alongside the later allegation of sexual assault.

It also considered material indicating a romantic relationship, the parties’ ages, the applicant’s lengthy custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that only two of 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Weighing these circumstances against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court treated them as mitigating factors supporting release on bail, while expressly reserving the merits for trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding bail and would not affect the trial.