Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where the minor’s statement lacked serious allegations against the applicant.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 185/2024 registered at Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

The minor victim’s father lodged a missing complaint on 6 October 2024. The victim was recovered on 28 May 2026, and in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, she stated that she had initially left home with co-accused Nageshwar Nishad, with whom she was in a relationship, and that he sexually assaulted her at Pune. She subsequently met the applicant, entered into a relationship with him, established physical relations, married him, and lived with him as his wife before returning to their village on 21 May 2026.

The applicant was arrested on 29 May 2026; investigation was completed and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The victim, accompanied by her father, appeared before the High Court through video conference and consented to the applicant being granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the allegations under the BNS and POCSO Act?

2. Whether the victim’s stated relationship with and consent to the applicant’s release could be considered as a relevant circumstance for deciding the bail application, notwithstanding her minority?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the settled bail-related factors of completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, the nature of the allegations, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

The Court noted the State’s submission that, because the victim was below eighteen years of age, her consent could not legally validate the alleged sexual acts under the POCSO framework; however, the Court considered her voluntary appearance and consent to the applicant’s release as a circumstance relevant to the limited adjudication of bail.

The Court found that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial interrogation.

The applicant had remained in custody since 29 May 2026, and the conclusion of trial was likely to take time.

On examining the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, the Court observed that there was no serious allegation of sexual assault specifically against the applicant, as distinct from the allegation concerning the co-accused.

Although the State correctly contended that the victim’s minority rendered her consent legally irrelevant to the alleged POCSO offence, the Court treated her appearance before it and consent to bail as a relevant factual circumstance for determining whether continued detention was necessary, without treating such consent as a defence to the substantive charges.

Balancing these circumstances, the Court held that the applicant had made out a fit case for regular bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

It directed that the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was made subject to conditions that the applicant would not threaten, induce, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.

The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for deciding bail and that the trial Court must adjudicate the case independently on its merits.