Specific Naming of Accused by Victim and Gravity of Trafficking Allegations Preclude Parity in Bail

The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur.

The appellant, along with co-accused persons, was charged with abducting a minor victim on April 24, 2024, and selling her to a co-accused in Uttar Pradesh for ₹35,000/-.

Initially registered as Crime No. 150/2024 under Sections 363, 370(4), 370A, 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was arrested on July 4, 2025.

The trial court denied bail on February 19, 2026, citing the gravity of the offense and flight risk.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail based on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail and the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.

2. Whether the gravity of the offences involving trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor outweighs the period of incarceration and the advanced stage of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008, regarding appeals against bail orders.

It considered the substantive offences under Sections 363 (Kidnapping), 370(4) (Trafficking of minor), 370A (Exploitation of trafficked person), and 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Section 6 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

The court also examined Section 483 of the BNSS (Bail provision) and the principle of parity in criminal jurisprudence, which necessitates similar treatment for similarly situated accused persons.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument for parity with co-accused Vijay Paswan, noting that Paswan’s name did not appear in the victim’s initial Section 161 and 164 CrPC statements, whereas the appellant was specifically named by the victim from the inception of the investigation.

Although the appellant argued there was a one-month delay in filing the FIR and that the victim did not raise an alarm in public places, the Court held that a detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage.

The Court emphasized that the allegations involve the trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor, which are grave in nature.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial is at an advanced stage, with only the Investigating Officer left to be examined, making interference with the custody unnecessary.

The Court held that the gravity of the charges and the specific identification of the appellant by the victim from the start disentitled him to bail.

The impugned order of the Special Judge (NIA) was upheld, and the request for bail was rejected.