Second bail application allowed upon commencement of trial, prolonged incarceration, and the victim’s mother raising no objection.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 237/2025 registered at Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, for offences under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 74, 75, 64 and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that on 3 December 2025, the applicant took the minor victim, aged approximately 4–5 years, to a vacant house, closed the door, and attempted to rape her; the victim cried and thereafter narrated the incident to her mother, who informed the complainant-father.

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet.

The applicant’s first bail application had been rejected on merits on 24 March 2026, before framing of charges and commencement of trial.

In the present second bail application, the applicant relied on changed circumstances, including commencement of trial, examination of three of eight prosecution witnesses, his incarceration since 4 December 2025, absence of criminal antecedents, and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

The victim’s mother, appearing through video conference from the concerned DLSA, stated that she had no objection to the grant of bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration of a second bail application on the basis of changed circumstances, namely, commencement of trial and examination of three prosecution witnesses.

2. Whether, considering the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the likely delay in conclusion of trial, and the victim’s mother’s no-objection, the applicant should be released on regular bail.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant regular bail.

A second bail application may be considered where there is a material change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier application; here, the Court considered commencement of trial and examination of three witnesses as the relevant changed circumstances.

The Court also considered the seriousness of the alleged offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act, the prosecution material, the period of custody, the likely time required for trial, and the position of the victim’s family.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the first bail application had been rejected at a preliminary stage, before charges were framed and before the trial commenced.

Since the present application was filed after commencement of trial and examination of three witnesses, the Court treated the circumstances as warranting reconsideration.

Although the State emphasised the gravity of the allegations and the young age of the victim, the Court balanced those considerations against the applicant’s custody since 4 December 2025, the likely considerable time required to complete the trial, the statements of the victim’s parents, and the victim’s mother’s express no-objection.

Without adjudicating the evidentiary merits, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to his appearance before that Court as and when directed.