The victim’s denial of assault and completed investigation supported release on bail.

The appellant challenged the order dated 1 August 2025 refusing bail in Spl.C. No. 162/2025.

The charge sheet alleged offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), arising from the alleged taking and sexual assault of the victim between 19 and 28 March 2025.

The appellant had been in judicial custody since his arrest on 17 April 2025, and the investigation was complete.

The appellant relied on the victim’s statement, the medical and FSL material, and the mother’s request for bail; the victim and her mother appeared before the High Court and supported his release.

1. Whether the appellant should be released on bail pending trial, having regard to the victim’s statement, the completed investigation, and the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the order refusing bail should be set aside and bail granted subject to conditions.

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides an appellate route concerning bail orders in cases under that Act.

The charged offences included Section 6 of the POCSO Act, provisions of the SC/ST Act, and provisions of the BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court expressly considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the victim’s statement, and the mother’s position; it cited no precedent or further bail doctrine.

The Court noted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183(5) of the BNS, as referred to in the judgment, did not implicate the appellant in aggravated penetrative sexual assault; the victim had said she went with him voluntarily and that he had not committed an offence.

The Court also considered that the investigation was complete and that both the victim and her mother supported release on bail.

Taking these matters together with the nature and gravity of the charges, the Court concluded that bail was appropriate, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

The appellant was ordered to be released on bail on executing a self-bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court; he was also directed to deposit the fine amount and appear at every hearing date.