Victim’s denial of sexual assault and consent supported grant of regular bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 74, 64(2)(m) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, arising from allegations that he abducted and sexually assaulted the victim

The applicant submitted that the victim was 17 years and 11 months old at the time of the incident, but had testified that she was 19 and denied sexual assault; he also relied on the completed investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, and his custody since 20 May 2026

The State opposed bail, contending that the victim was a minor and her consent was therefore irrelevant

The victim appeared by video conference and consented to the applicant’s release on bail

The application was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the procedural basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail

The alleged offences were under Sections 74, 64(2)(m) and 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act

The Court applied no cited precedent and did not state a broader legal test; it assessed the circumstances relevant to bail, including completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody, the victim’s position and her testimony

The Court found that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, that the applicant had been in custody since 20 May 2026, and that the victim had both consented to bail and testified before the trial court denying the allegation of sexual assault

Although the State argued that the victim’s minority made consent irrelevant, the Court did not determine her age or resolve the merits of the allegations. It relied on the stated circumstances to find that bail was justified, expressly reserving the merits for the trial court

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and failure to appear on each date fixed by the trial court until disposal of the trial

The trial court was directed to decide the case on its own merits