Regular bail granted in POCSO case after victim failed to support prosecution and prolonged custody.

The applicant, aged about 23 years, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 35/2025 registered at Police Station Balrampur for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The minor prosecutrix went missing from her paternal home on 27 March 2025, following which her father lodged a complaint expressing suspicion against the applicant.

During investigation, the prosecution alleged that the applicant had developed a physical relationship with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, resulting in the addition of the aggravated sexual assault and POCSO offences.

The charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed. The applicant had remained in custody since 28 March 2025.

During trial, the prosecutrix was examined but did not support the prosecution case and denied the suggestions made by the Public Prosecutor.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the offences alleged under the BNS and the POCSO Act.

Whether the prosecutrix’s failure to support the prosecution case, the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial justified the grant of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and detained in custody.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the evidentiary position, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the likely duration of the trial, and the need to protect the fairness of the proceedings.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecutrix had objected to the applicant’s release when she appeared through video conferencing, and that the prosecution alleged that the applicant had lured and sexually assaulted a minor.

However, upon examining her evidence recorded before the Trial Court, the Court found that she had not supported the prosecution case and had denied the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, charges had been framed, and the applicant had been in custody since 28 March 2025, the Court considered that further detention was not necessary for investigation and that the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s opposition, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The applicant be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The bail was subject to conditions that he appear for police interrogation when required, refrain from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not act in any manner prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the Trial Court’s independent determination of the case on merits.