Regular bail granted after the minor victim and her mother failed to support the prosecution at trial.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 183/2026 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the approximately 13-year-old victim went missing on 26 April 2026 and was recovered on 27 April 2026.

In her initial statement, she alleged that the applicant took her to Kudri Barrage and thereafter to Bilaspur on the pretext of marriage, where they stayed together and had sexual relations.

The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed.

The victim and her mother subsequently appeared as prosecution witnesses before the trial court but did not support the prosecution case and denied the suggestions made by the Public Prosecutor.

The victim and her mother also appeared before the High Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA, and the victim 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, despite the serious allegations under the BNS and the POCSO Act.

Whether the subsequent testimony of the victim and her mother, their failure to support the prosecution case, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the victim’s consent justified grant of bail.

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

The prosecution allegations involved Sections 137(2), 87 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the evidentiary position, the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

The Court also clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial on merits.

Although the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS contained serious allegations of sexual assault, the Court gave substantial weight at the bail stage to her subsequent deposition before the trial court, in which she did not support the prosecution case, along with the similar testimony of her mother.

The Court further considered that the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 27 April 2026, making continued pre-trial detention less necessary and indicating that the trial could take time.

The victim’s consent to bail was also taken into account.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that the cumulative circumstances made out a fit case for regular bail.

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.

Bail was subject to conditions that he must not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; must not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and must appear before the trial court on every date fixed until disposal of the case.

The Court expressly stated that its observations would not influence the trial court’s decision on merits.