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

The applicant, aged 21 years, was arrested on 16.04.2026 in connection with Crime No. 66/2026 registered at Police Station Deori, District Balod, for offences under Section 64(2)(M) 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, knowing that the victim was below 18 years of age, sexually assaulted her on a false promise of marriage.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, and likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

During the proceedings, the victim was examined before the Trial Court and did not support the prosecution case; she also stated before the High Court 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, notwithstanding the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act?

Whether the victim’s failure to support the prosecution case, her no-objection to bail, the applicant’s period of custody, and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on 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 seriousness of the offences registered under Section 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The governing bail considerations included the material available in the case diary, the nature of the prosecution evidence, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the need to protect the fairness of the proceedings.

The Court noted that although the prosecution alleged sexual assault of a minor, the victim had not supported the prosecution case during her evidence before the Trial Court and had denied the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor.

She had also appeared before the High Court through video conferencing and expressed that she had no objection to the applicant being released on bail.

The Court further considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 16.04.2026, had no criminal antecedents as asserted by the defence, and that the trial was likely to take additional time.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s opposition, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary at that stage.

The release was subject to conditions that he make himself available for interrogation when required, refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not act in a manner 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 merits.