Regular bail granted where the POCSO victim did not support prosecution, expressed no objection, and trial delay was anticipated.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 281/2026 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, for offences under Sections 74, 75(2), 332(c), 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 05.07.2026, the applicants visited the family shop of the prosecutrix and molested the prosecutrix and her mother.

The applicants claimed false implication and submitted that the prosecutrix, while being examined before the trial court, did not support the prosecution case.

Applicant Arvind Singh Rajput had no criminal antecedents, while applicant Lakhan Singh Rajput had one antecedent under the Excise Act; both had remained in custody since 06.07.2026.

The prosecutrix and her mother appeared before the High Court and stated that they had no objection to the grant of bail.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the evidence recorded before the trial court, and the period of custody?

Whether bail could be granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicants’ availability and protect the fairness of the trial?

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

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the evidentiary position, the applicants’ period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, and the absence or limited nature of criminal antecedents.

Bail was made subject to conditions under which the applicants were required to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The offences alleged were under Sections 74, 75(2), 332(c), 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The Court found that the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution case during her testimony before the trial court and had denied the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor.

It also noted that the prosecutrix and her mother had personally stated that they had no objection to the applicants being released on bail.

Balancing these circumstances against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court considered that the applicants had been in custody since 06.07.2026 and that the trial was likely to take time to conclude.

On that basis, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was not necessary, while safeguarding the proceedings through conditions against non-cooperation, inducement, threats, or interference with a fair trial.

The applicants were directed to make themselves available for police interrogation when required, not to induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not to act prejudicially 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.