Regular bail granted in POCSO case after victim and complainant file no-objection affidavits.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 105/2026, registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner sexually assaulted the complainant’s daughter when she was 17 years and 11 months old, resulting in pregnancy.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

By the time of the bail petition, the victim had attained majority; the complainant and victim filed affidavits stating that they had no objection to bail, and the victim described the relationship as consensual.

The State opposed bail, citing the risk of witness tampering and interference with the investigation.

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail in the pending POCSO case, having regard to the parties’ affidavits of no objection and the prosecution’s concerns about witness tampering.

2. Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions sufficient to address the prosecution’s stated concerns.

The Court exercised its regular-bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as identified in the petition).

The alleged offences were under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The order cites no precedent or detailed legal test governing bail; it records the parties’ positions and grants bail subject to conditions intended to prevent witness tampering and ensure the petitioner’s attendance.

The Court noted the material indicating that the alleged incident occurred while the victim was a minor and that she became pregnant.

It also considered the complainant’s and victim’s affidavits stating that they had no objection to bail, including the victim’s statement that the relationship was consensual and involved no force, coercion, threat, or intimidation.

Although the State opposed release on the ground of possible witness tampering and interference with the investigation, the Court granted bail and addressed that concern through conditions prohibiting threats or interference with prosecution witnesses and requiring regular court attendance.

The Court stated that breach of the conditions would permit the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.