Regular bail granted where the POCSO victim turned hostile, had no injuries, and trial conclusion was likely delayed.

On 8 November 2025, the minor victim left her home stating that she was going to attend a dance programme and would return within two days. She did not return, and efforts by her family to trace her were unsuccessful.

The victim’s mother subsequently lodged an FIR on 15 November 2025, alleging that the victim had been enticed, lured, or kidnapped by an unknown person.

The applicant was arrested on 13 January 2026 in connection with Crime No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station Chura, District Gariyaband, for offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he was falsely implicated, that the victim had not supported the prosecution before the trial court, had expressed no objection to bail, and had suffered no injuries.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the victim’s testimony and the circumstances of the case.

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, the victim’s failure to support the prosecution, her no-objection to bail, absence of injuries, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the 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.

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the material available in the case diary, the evidentiary position, the conduct and testimony of the victim, the period of custody already undergone, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournments, and protect the progress of the trial.

The Court examined the victim’s evidence and found that she had not supported the prosecution case and had turned hostile before the trial court.

She had also expressed no objection to the applicant’s release on bail. The Court further noted that no injuries were found during her medical examination.

These circumstances, considered together with the applicant’s custody since 13 January 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude, weighed in favour of granting bail.

The Court therefore concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted at that stage, while safeguarding the trial through conditions relating to attendance, non-seeking of adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement, and to comply with proceedings arising from any misuse of bail or failure to appear.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.