Regular bail granted to female co-accused where the minor victim disowned the prosecution case and trial delay was anticipated.

The applicant, Shrimati Nandkumari, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 28/2026 registered at Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 137(2), 96, 87, 64(2)(i), 142, 143, 144 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant lured the minor victim by promising to arrange her marriage and facilitated the victim’s acquaintance with the principal accused, Roop Narayan, who allegedly sexually assaulted the victim on several occasions.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that she was a woman, was not the principal accused, had no criminal antecedents, and had been in custody since 4 April 2026.

The prosecution opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s alleged role in luring and facilitating the sexual assault of the victim.

During the proceedings, the victim appeared through video conferencing and stated that she had no objection to the applicant being released on bail; she had also not supported the prosecution case during her trial testimony.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations against her and the nature of the offences.

2. Whether the victim’s failure to support the prosecution case, her lack of objection to bail, the applicant’s gender, period of custody, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial justified 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.

It considered the allegations under Sections 137(2), 96, 87, 64(2)(i), 142, 143, 144 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as stated in the FIR and case diary.

The governing bail principle applied was that release may be granted after considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged role, the evidence available, custody period, likelihood of delay in trial, and the possibility of interference with the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant had lured the minor and facilitated the principal accused’s access to her, but also took into account that the applicant was not alleged to be the principal assailant.

The victim had not supported the prosecution during her evidence before the Trial Court and had denied the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor; she also stated before the High Court that she had no objection to the applicant’s release on bail.

In addition, the applicant was a woman with no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 4 April 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant satisfied the requirements for bail.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring her to appear for police interrogation when required, refrain from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

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