Regular bail granted after victim and her father turned hostile, with charge-sheet filed and prolonged custody.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2026 registered at Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, for offences under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had lured the approximately 16-year-old victim into a relationship, taken her to his aunt’s village on 16 March 2026, and subjected her to sexual intercourse.

It was further alleged that on 12 May 2026 the applicant took the victim from her house during the night and that she was brought back the following morning.

The victim’s father lodged the report on 13 May 2026, and the police subsequently filed the charge-sheet.

The applicant contended that the FIR was delayed, the medical examination did not corroborate the allegation, and that the victim and her father, examined as prosecution witnesses, did not support the prosecution case.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was a minor and that the allegations were serious.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the victim’s minority?

Whether the victim’s and her father’s failure to support the prosecution case, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the anticipated delay in trial justified the 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 to an accused in custody.

It also considered the substantive allegations under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the evidence presently available, the conduct of material witnesses, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

Although the State relied on the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s minority, the Court found several circumstances favouring bail.

The victim and her father had already been examined before the trial Court and had not supported the prosecution case or accepted the suggestions made by the Public Prosecutor.

The Court also noted the victim’s and her father’s consent to the grant of bail, the alleged delay between the incident of 16 March 2026 and the complaint dated 13 May 2026, the absence of corroborative medical evidence, and the negative medical examination as urged by the applicant.

Since the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 14 May 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified pending trial.

The applicant be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicant was restrained from influencing or threatening witnesses, required not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and directed to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.