Regular bail granted in a POCSO case after the victim failed to support prosecution and trial faced delay.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 101/2026 registered at Police Station Janakpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, on the promise of marrying the minor victim, repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse, resulting in pregnancy and the subsequent birth of a child.

The applicant had been in custody since 7 July 2026 and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

During trial, the victim was examined and stated her age as 20 years and did not support the prosecution case; the victim and her father also stated that they had no objection to bail.

The State opposed bail, relying on charge-sheet documents indicating that the victim was approximately 16 years and 6 months old and on her police statement alleging sexual intercourse with the applicant.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court.

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

The governing bail principles required consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material available against the accused, the period of incarceration, the likelihood of the trial being concluded within a reasonable time, and the possibility of misuse of liberty.

The Court also imposed conditions to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournment of evidence, and address any misuse of bail.

The Court acknowledged the competing material: the prosecution case and charge-sheet documents indicated that the victim was a minor and that there was a specific allegation of sexual intercourse, whereas the victim, when examined before the trial court, stated that she was 20 years old and did not support the prosecution.

Without making any finding on the merits or pre-judging the evidentiary conflict, the Court considered the applicant’s custody since 7 July 2026, the fact that the trial was likely to take time, and the victim’s and her father’s lack of objection to bail.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions ensuring his attendance and preventing interference with the trial.

The applicant was required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, 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 authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, issuance of proclamation, or failure to appear pursuant thereto.