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

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 144/2026 registered at Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 74, 75(2), 76 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, posing as “Vijay,” induced the prosecutrix and her sister-in-law by promising employment, collected them in his vehicle, inappropriately touched the sister-in-law, and thereafter forcibly pulled the prosecutrix, tore her kurta, and touched her chest and waist.

The applicant claimed false implication, relied on the victims’ evidence before the trial court in which they did not support the prosecution, and submitted that he had been in custody since 24 April 2026 and that the trial would take time.

The State and the objector opposed bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the serious offences alleged against him.

Whether the victims’ failure to support the prosecution before the trial court, the applicant’s period of custody, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial justified his 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 74, 75(2), 76 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the material in the case diary, the apparent evidentiary position, the applicant’s period of incarceration, and the likelihood of delay in trial, while also imposing conditions to secure the applicant’s availability and protect the fairness of the proceedings.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecution alleged sexual misconduct against two women, including a minor, and that the State and objector opposed bail.

However, upon examining the victims’ testimony recorded before the trial court, the Court found that they had not supported the prosecution and had denied the suggestions put by the Public Prosecutor.

Considering this evidentiary development, the applicant’s custody since 24 April 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take additional time, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

The victim’s objection raised through video conferencing was noted but was not considered sufficient to outweigh these circumstances.

Bail was subject to conditions that the applicant would appear for police interrogation when required, would not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and would not 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.