Regular bail granted where the victim disowned allegations and evidence indicated she was major at the time of incident.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2026 registered at Police Station Bastar for offences under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, between 5 and 7 December 2025, the applicant sexually assaulted the minor victim at his house on the promise of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy.

The applicant was arrested on 12 January 2026, and the investigation was completed with submission of the charge-sheet.

The applicant contended that the victim had attained majority on the date of the incident, had maintained a consensual relationship with him, and had not supported the prosecution during her deposition.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was approximately 17 years and 2 months old at the relevant time, making her consent legally irrelevant.

During the bail proceedings, the victim and her father appeared through video conferencing before the Court, and the victim consented to the applicant being granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the pending criminal trial.

2. Whether the victim’s deposition, in which she did not support the prosecution and stated that she was born in 2007, constituted a relevant circumstance supporting the grant of bail.

3. Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the victim’s consent 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 alleged offences under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court assessed the bail application on the established principles that relevant considerations include the evidentiary position, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or obstructing a fair trial, completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody.

The Court also recognised that if the victim was a minor, her consent would not legally exonerate the accused; however, the victim’s age and testimony were considered at the interlocutory bail stage.

The Court found that the victim had already been examined and had not supported the prosecution’s case; she denied the incident alleged in the FIR and also denied the suggestions put to her by the Public Prosecutor.

Her statement that she was born in 2007 was treated, for the purpose of bail, as indicating that she was a major on the date of the alleged incident, notwithstanding the State’s contrary assertion regarding her age.

The Court further considered that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the victim had personally expressed consent to the grant of bail before the Court.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court concluded that these circumstances constituted a sufficient basis for regular bail.

The applicant was directed to be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was subject to conditions that he would not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case; would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to determination of the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on merits.