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

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, then aged 15 years and 9 months, went missing on 31 October 2025 and was later recovered from the applicant’s possession; the offences were added on the basis of her statement and age.

The applicant had been in custody since 10 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed. He submitted that the victim had not supported the prosecution at trial and that they had married and had a child together.

The State relied on the victim’s allegations in her statement under Section 183 BNSS.

Appearing by video conference, the victim expressed consent to the applicant’s release on bail.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of the circumstances of the case, including the victim’s trial testimony, the applicant’s custody, and filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing a fair and expeditious trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The Court considered the circumstances relevant to bail, including the stage of the proceedings, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the victim’s evidence and expressed position, and the need to protect the fairness of the trial.

Without expressing any view on the merits, the Court found that bail was justified because the victim had been examined at trial and had not supported the prosecution, the applicant and victim had married and had a child, and the victim had expressed consent to bail.

The Court also considered that the applicant had been in custody since 10 June 2026 and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

It imposed conditions against influencing witnesses or prejudicing the trial, and required the applicant to attend each hearing.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducements, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; prohibiting conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring attendance at every hearing until disposal of the trial.