Regular bail granted in POCSO case where victim made no sexual-assault allegation and did not oppose release.

The applicant, aged about 19 years, was arrested on 9 December 2025 in connection with Crime No. 303/2025 registered at Police Station Nandani Nagar, District Durg, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 83, 64(2)(M) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The victim, aged approximately 13 years and 5 months, was reported missing by her father on 24 November 2025. During investigation, the police recovered her from the applicant’s possession at an under-construction house in Pune, Maharashtra.

The applicant sought regular bail, asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of any allegation of sexual assault against him in the victim’s statement.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the gravity of the offences but accepted that the victim had not alleged sexual assault by the applicant.

The victim and her father appeared before the Court through virtual mode and stated that they had no objection to 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 exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material appearing against the applicant, the applicant’s period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, and the victim’s position regarding bail.

The Court also imposed conditions under its bail jurisdiction requiring the applicant to attend the trial, refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments, appear personally at material stages, and comply with consequences prescribed by law in the event of absence or misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 9 December 2025, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take further time.

Although the offences alleged were serious, the State acknowledged that the victim had made no allegation of sexual assault against the applicant, and both the victim and her father expressed no objection to bail.

Balancing these circumstances against the seriousness of the charges, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court considered the applicant entitled to regular bail.

To safeguard the trial process, it prescribed attendance, non-adjournment and personal-appearance conditions, together with consequences for deliberate absence or misuse of bail.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court on every date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court further directed that appropriate proceedings could be initiated in accordance with law in case of absence, proclamation and failure to appear, or misuse of the liberty of bail.