Regular bail granted where the minor prosecutrix disowned the prosecution case and trial was likely to be delayed.

On 1 October 2024, the victim’s mother reported that her minor daughter had left home on 29 September 2024 without informing anyone and had not returned; she suspected that an unknown person had enticed or lured her away.

The applicant, aged 22 years, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 15/2026 registered at Out Post Ganeshmod, Police Station Balrampur, for offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1), 69 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the prosecutrix, her mother and her brother had not supported the prosecution during trial, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he had remained in custody since 26 January 2026.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the victim stated before the High Court through video conferencing that she had no objection to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the evidence recorded during trial, and the period of custody.

Whether the applicant’s release on bail was warranted where the victim had not supported the prosecution case, had expressed no objection to bail, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

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

The alleged offences arose under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1), 69 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the material in the case diary, the evidence of the victim recorded before the trial court, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s availability, prevent interference with witnesses, and protect the fairness and expeditiousness of the trial.

The Court found that the victim had not supported the prosecution case during her testimony and had denied the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor.

The victim also stated that she had no objection to the applicant being released on bail.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 26 January 2026, and the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary for the purposes of the case at that stage.

Balancing these considerations against the seriousness of the alleged offences, the Court exercised its power under Section 483 of the BNSS and ordered release on bail subject to safeguards against witness intimidation, interference with the investigation or trial, and obstruction of a fair adjudication.

It directed that the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail conditions required him to remain available for interrogation when required, refrain from inducing, threatening or promising anything to persons acquainted with the facts of the case, and avoid conduct 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 on the merits.