Regular bail granted considering the accused’s tender age, pretrial detention, and likely delay in trial.

The applicant was arrested on 24 October 2025 in connection with Crime No. 2195/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Sections 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, who was acquainted with the victim and communicated with her by telephone, called her outside her house on 21 October 2025, took her to his residence on a motorcycle, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will.

The applicant asserted that he had been falsely implicated, that the victim was a major and a consenting party, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the victim had alleged that the applicant had been committing sexual intercourse with her for approximately two years before the report was lodged.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the victim’s age, the applicant’s age, custody period, and the anticipated duration of the trial?

2. Whether the applicant’s asserted consensual relationship, absence of criminal antecedents, and the surrounding circumstances justified grant of bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court.

The prosecution invoked Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material available on record, the age of the victim and accused, the period of pre-trial detention, the possibility of delay in trial, and the requirement that bail be subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of liberty.

The Court considered the case diary/material on record, the competing submissions, and the nature of the allegations.

Although the prosecution alleged sexual intercourse over a period of approximately two years, the Court noted that the victim’s age on the date of the FIR was approximately 18 years, while the applicant was about 19 years old.

The Court also took into account the applicant’s period of custody since 24 October 2025, his tender age, the absence of any stated criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

These factors persuaded the Court that continued pre-trial detention was not necessary at that stage.

The Court expressly refrained from making any observation on the merits of the case and imposed conditions intended to ensure attendance, cooperation with the trial, and non-misuse of bail.

It directed his release upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The applicant was required not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, 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 further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.