Regular bail granted where the victim did not support prosecution and trial was likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested on 17 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 54/2026 registered at Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(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 minor victim left her home on 5 January 2026 and was subsequently recovered from the applicant at Kawardha. Following investigation, a final report was filed before the Special Judge, Kabirdham.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the victim had been examined during trial but had not supported the prosecution, that he had remained in custody since 17 May 2026, and that only two of nineteen witnesses had been examined. The State opposed bail, relying on the allegations in the charge-sheet and submitting that the victim’s testimony was a matter for appreciation by the trial court. The victim and her mother appeared before the High Court, where the victim stated that she had no objection to the applicant being released on bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the allegations, the evidence recorded during trial, the victim’s stated lack of objection, and the period of custody.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing obstruction or misuse of the trial process.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail. In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the materials collected during investigation, the period of detention, the progress and likely duration of the trial, and the possibility of misuse of bail.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, subject to conditions requiring the applicant’s attendance, cooperation with the trial, and compliance with the applicable provisions concerning absence, proclamation and consequential proceedings.

The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 17 May 2026, that the trial was progressing slowly with only two of nineteen witnesses examined, and that its conclusion was likely to take time. It also took note of the fact that the victim had already been examined and had not supported the prosecution, as well as her statement before the Court that she had no objection to the applicant’s release.

Although the State pointed out the serious allegations contained in the charge-sheet, the Court considered the competing factors and concluded that continued detention was not warranted at that stage. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits and imposed conditions designed to ensure attendance and prevent delay or misuse of the liberty of bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and permitted the trial court to take appropriate action in case of absence, misuse of bail, or non-compliance. A certified copy of the order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.