Prolonged incarceration, delayed trial, and non-supportive key witnesses justify bail without assessing merits.

The applicant, Vishal Kumar, sought regular bail in connection with FIR No. 266 of 2024, registered at Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun, for offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

He had been arrested on 17 September 2024 and was charge-sheeted in the matter.

The defence submitted that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident, while the applicant was 21; that their families knew each other; and that they had travelled together to places including Kullu-Manali for approximately 10–11 days.

The applicant further relied on the length of his incarceration—more than one year and ten months—and the limited progress of the trial.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of the nature of the accusations, the material available from the testimony of the victim and doctor, and the statutory offences alleged against him?

Whether the applicant’s prolonged incarceration and the limited progress of the trial justified his release on bail?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

In determining entitlement to regular bail, the Court assessed the prima facie material, the stage and progress of the trial, the period of incarceration, and the testimony of material prosecution witnesses.

The Court also applied the principle that an order granting bail should not amount to a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case; accordingly, it expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court found three circumstances favouring bail: the applicant had undergone more than one year and ten months of incarceration; the trial had progressed slowly, with only three of the 17 prosecution witnesses examined; and neither the victim nor the doctor had supported the prosecution case in the manner alleged, although the evidentiary effect of their testimony remained a matter for trial.

The Court also took note of the defence submissions concerning the parties’ familiarity, their travel together, the victim’s testimony that nothing wrong had been done to her, and the doctor’s evidence regarding the absence of an opinion that rape had been committed.

Without conclusively evaluating these matters or determining guilt, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for release on bail.

The High Court directed that Vishal Kumar be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

The bail was subject to the conditions that he attend the trial on every date without seeking unnecessary adjournments and refrain from threatening the victim or her family members; breach of the latter condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.