Prolonged custody and likely trial delay warranted bail in a POCSO prosecution.

The applicant was prosecuted in Crime No. 27/2025 registered at Police Station Rengakhar, District Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 74 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and two co-accused abused and assaulted the victim and the complainant’s nephew, threatened them, and that the applicant took the minor victim towards a forested area, held and dragged her, threatened to commit a wrongful act and kill her, and fled when she was assisted by a passer-by.

The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits on 2 February 2026, while the applications of the co-accused were allowed; the applicant was regarded as the principal accused.

He had remained in custody since 24 October 2025.

By the time of the second application, four of the prosecution’s 23 witnesses had been examined, including the victim and her parents; the fourth witness was stated to be a hearsay witness.

The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and opposed the bail application.

Whether, in view of the applicant’s period of custody, the progress of trial, and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, the applicant should be released on bail notwithstanding rejection of his earlier bail application on merits.

Whether the allegations under the cited provisions of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, together with the victim’s objection and supporting testimony, warranted continued detention of the applicant during trial.

The Court considered the applicant’s second bail application under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 74 and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The governing bail principles applied were the discretionary assessment of the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence, the material appearing against the accused, the period of custody, the progress and likely duration of trial, and the need to avoid pre-trial detention becoming unduly prolonged.

The order does not cite any judicial precedent or articulate an additional statutory test for entertaining a second bail application.

The Court considered the victim’s statement, the evidence of her father and mother, the testimony of Uttam Merawi, the nature of the allegations, and the applicant’s custody period.

Although the first bail application had been rejected on merits and the victim opposed release, the Court found that the applicant had remained in custody since 24 October 2025 and that only four of 23 witnesses had been examined.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted at that stage and exercised its discretion in favour of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the merits of the trial.

The High Court directed his release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

He was directed to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

The Court further ordered transmission of the certified order to the trial Court for compliance and clarified that the observations in the bail order would not affect the trial.