Regular bail granted where the minor victim did not support the prosecution and trial conclusion was likely delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 89/2026 registered at Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant sexually assaulted the victim, who was approximately 14 years old at the time of the incident

The victim and her father appeared before the High Court through virtual mode and opposed the grant of bail

The applicant contended that the victim had been examined during trial but had not supported the prosecution case and had denied the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor; he also submitted that he had remained in custody since 29 March 2026

The State opposed bail, relying upon the victim’s age and medical evidence allegedly supporting the prosecution case.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the serious offences alleged under the BNS and the POCSO Act?

Whether the victim’s having been examined without supporting the prosecution case, together with the applicant’s period of custody and the likely delay in conclusion of trial, justified release on bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to consider the applicant’s request for regular bail

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which concern aggravated sexual offences and penetrative sexual assault against a child

In determining bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the evidence presently available, the victim’s testimony, the period of pre-trial custody, and the likelihood of delay in completing the trial

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of liberty.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s submission that the victim was 14 years old and that medical evidence supported the prosecution case

However, the victim had already been examined and had not supported the prosecution case, including by denying the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor

Taking this evidentiary circumstance together with the applicant’s custody since 29 March 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would take further time, the Court found sufficient grounds to exercise discretion in favour of bail

The victim’s objection to bail was considered but did not outweigh these circumstances.

The release was subject to conditions requiring the applicant not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.