Regular bail granted after the prosecutrix turned hostile, expressed consent, and the charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant was arrested on 27 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, for offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant became acquainted with the victim at school, promised to marry her, and had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions between February and April 2026, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim was stated to be approximately 17 years old at the relevant time.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the victim had been examined before the trial court and had not supported the prosecution case, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

During the bail proceedings, the victim and her father appeared through video conferencing and expressed consent to the applicant being granted bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations under the BNS and the POCSO Act?

Whether the victim’s failure to support the prosecution case, her and her father’s consent to bail, the applicant’s period of custody, and filing of the charge-sheet justified grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The alleged offences were under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which concern aggravated sexual assault/rape-related conduct and aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a child.

In determining bail, the Court considered relevant factors including the nature of the allegations, the victim’s testimony, the possibility of interference with the trial, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of the proceedings.

Bail was made subject to the statutory safeguards against witness inducement or threats, prejudice to a fair trial, and non-appearance before the trial court.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s contention that the victim was a minor.

However, it found that the victim had already been examined before the trial court and had not supported the prosecution case.

The Court also relied on the victim’s and her father’s appearance before it and their expressed consent to the applicant’s release, the applicant’s custody since 27 June 2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Without making any finding on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted, particularly as the trial was likely to take time.

The applicant was directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The applicant was prohibited from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case; from acting prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial; and was directed to appear before the trial court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.