Regular bail granted to alleged accomplice after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 142/2026 registered at Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 137(2), 64 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The minor victim’s father lodged a missing report on 16 May 2026.

The victim was recovered on 17 June 2026, and in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS she stated that the applicant had taken her and co-accused Pranjal Patle from Bilaspur to Raipur and thereafter to Pune.

The applicant contended that the allegation of sexual assault was primarily against co-accused Pranjal Patle and that his alleged role was limited to assisting the principal accused.

Investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed; the applicant had remained in custody since 16 July 2026.

The victim, accompanied by her father, appeared before the Court and opposed bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in view of the allegations under the BNS and the POCSO Act.

Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s limited alleged role, and the period of custody justified release on bail despite the victim’s objection and the seriousness of the offences.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the charged offences under Sections 137(2), 64 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

The governing principle was that bail may be granted after assessing the facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicant’s alleged role, the status of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and period of custody, without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

Bail was also made subject to conditions intended to prevent witness intimidation, interference with a fair trial, and non-appearance before the trial court.

The Court noted that the principal allegation of sexual assault was against co-accused Pranjal Patle, whereas the applicant was alleged to have assisted the principal accused in taking the victim to different places.

The Court further considered that the investigation had been completed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since 16 July 2026, reducing the justification for continued pre-trial detention.

Although the State relied on the victim’s age—approximately 16 years and 7 months—and the direct allegation against the applicant, and the victim personally opposed bail, the Court held that the applicant’s alleged role, the completed investigation, and the likelihood of delay in trial cumulatively made out a case for bail.

The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions that he would not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and would appear before the trial court on every date fixed until disposal of the case.

The order was expressly limited to the determination of bail and did not constitute an opinion on the merits.