Regular bail granted considering the accused’s tender age and likely delay in trial despite POCSO charges.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 171/2025 registered at Police Station Charama, District Kanker, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the victim’s mother reported that her approximately 17-year-and-8-month-old daughter had been taken away by unknown persons.

After recovery from Raipur, the victim stated that the applicant had taken her from Hinganghat to Nagpur and thereafter to Pune, where they worked at a brick-manufacturing unit.

She further alleged that the applicant had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage, concealed his true identity and address, and later left her in Raipur.

The applicant was arrested on 20 March 2026. He denied the allegations, asserted that the victim was a consenting party and claimed that he had no criminal antecedents.

He also relied on his age, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that only the victim had been examined out of 26 witnesses.

The State opposed bail, relying on the gravity of the offences and the victim’s school admission register, which recorded her date of birth as 13 April 2008.

The victim and her mother appeared before the Court through virtual mode and opposed 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, in the context of offences charged under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The decision was guided by the settled bail considerations of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material placed before the Court, the applicant’s circumstances, the stage and likely duration of the trial, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

The Court also considered the applicant’s tender age and the fact that the grant of bail would be without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court considered the competing submissions concerning the victim’s age, alleged consent, promise of marriage, and the gravity of the offences, but did not make any final determination on those disputed factual or legal issues at the bail stage.

Although the State relied on the victim’s recorded date of birth and opposed bail, the Court gave weight to the applicant’s tender age, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the slow progress of the trial, noting that only one of 26 witnesses had been examined and that the trial was likely to take further time.

On this cumulative assessment, and without commenting on the merits, the Court found the case appropriate for release on regular bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The Court imposed conditions requiring the applicant not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court, to comply with proceedings concerning absence or non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order was directed to be communicated to the trial Court for compliance.