Regular Bail Granted After Minor Victim Did Not Support Prosecution at Trial

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a prosecution under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3/4(2), 5(1)(ii)/6 and 5(B)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that, between 5 October 2025 and 10 May 2026, the applicant sexually assaulted the victim, who was about 15 years old, on various occasions on the pretext of marriage, and that she became pregnant.

The applicant had been in custody since 3 June 2026; the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Before the bail hearing, the victim had testified at trial and had not supported the prosecution case; she and her mother also appeared before the High Court, and the victim consented to bail.

The Court considered the application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which provides the procedural basis invoked for regular bail.

The charged provisions of the BNS and the POCSO Act formed the context of the prosecution; the State submitted that the victim’s consent was irrelevant because she was a minor.

The Court stated no separate substantive rule or precedent, and did not determine the legal effect of consent on the alleged offences.

In deciding bail, it considered the circumstances identified in its order, including completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, custody, the victim’s testimony, and her consent.

The Court found that the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, while the applicant had remained in custody since 3 June 2026.

It also took account of the victim’s testimony, which did not support the prosecution case, and her consent to the applicant’s release.

On the combined circumstances, the Court considered the case fit for regular bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

It did not separately resolve the State’s submission concerning the victim’s minority or establish that her consent altered the substantive criminal-law position.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial and requiring the applicant to attend each trial-court date until disposal of the case.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and that the trial court must decide the case on its own merits.