Regular bail granted where the minor victim and her father turned hostile after testifying at trial.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2026 registered at Police Station Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 87 and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had established a sexual relationship with the victim on the promise of marriage, pursuant to which the victim’s father lodged a written report.

The applicant contended that the parties were in a consensual love relationship, had voluntarily accompanied each other, and had lived together at different places.

During the trial, the victim and her father were examined as prosecution witnesses but did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

The applicant had remained in custody since 8 April 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the investigation had been completed with the filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the victim was approximately 16 years and 25 days old on the date of the incident and was therefore a minor.

The victim and her father subsequently appeared before the High Court through the District Legal Services Authority and expressed consent to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the victim’s minority, the completion of investigation, and the filing of the charge-sheet?

Whether the fact that the victim and her father had turned hostile during trial and expressed no objection to bail justified the grant of regular bail?

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

It also considered the charges under Sections 64(2)(m), 87 and 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court reiterated the established bail principle that, while deciding a bail application, the Court must not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or conclusively assess the reliability and credibility of prosecution witnesses; such evaluation is reserved for the final adjudication of the trial.

Bail is therefore determined on the overall circumstances, including the stage of the proceedings, completion of investigation, period of custody, and the likelihood of interference with the trial.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s submission that the victim was a minor.

However, it found that the investigation had been completed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had remained in custody since 8 April 2026.

It further considered that the victim and her father had been examined during trial, had not supported the prosecution case, had turned hostile, and had denied the suggestions put by the prosecution.

Their subsequent appearance through the DLSA and expression of consent for bail were also taken into account.

Without treating these circumstances as a final determination of the merits, the Court held that the evidentiary assessment belonged to the trial and that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The applicant was restrained from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts of the case, required not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and directed to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial Court for compliance.