Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing, prolonged custody, and the minor victim’s consent.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 219/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The minor victim’s father lodged a missing-person complaint on 01.05.2026, and she was recovered on 02.05.2026.

In her statement, she stated that she had accompanied the applicant on his motorcycle pursuant to his promise to marry her and that they had lived as husband and wife in Raipur.

The applicant contended that the victim was approximately 17 years and 3 months old, that their relationship was consensual, and that they had stayed together from 24.04.2026 to 01.05.2026.

The investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 03.05.2026.

The victim appeared before the High Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA, along with her father, and expressed consent to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the victim’s minority, the completion of investigation, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the victim’s consent to the grant of bail, coupled with the applicant’s period of custody and the likely delay in conclusion of trial, justified release on bail notwithstanding the allegations under the POCSO Act.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the settled bail principles requiring assessment of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of interference with witnesses or the administration of justice.

The Court also considered the statutory framework comprising Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, while noting the State’s position that the victim’s consent could not negate the alleged offence because she was a minor.

The Court did not determine the merits of the prosecution case or treat the victim’s consent as exonerating the applicant.

Instead, for the limited purpose of bail, it gave weight to the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 03.05.2026, and the victim’s express consent to his release.

Although the State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was approximately 17 years and 3 months old and that consent was legally irrelevant in a POCSO prosecution, the Court found that the totality of circumstances made out a fit case for regular bail.

To protect the integrity of the trial, the Court imposed conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial court.

The applicant was directed to be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions prescribed in paragraph 8, including non-interference with witnesses, non-prejudicial conduct, and appearance on every date of hearing until conclusion of the trial.

The trial court was directed to decide the case independently on its own merits.