Victim’s testimony of adulthood and lack of objection supported grant of bail.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(n) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the minor victim went missing in October 2025 and was recovered in Uttar Pradesh in April 2026, where she was living with the applicant; he was arrested on 29 April 2026.

The applicant relied on their alleged relationship, the victim’s and her mother’s testimony not supporting the prosecution, completion of the investigation, and the time already spent in custody.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the victim was 15 years and 5 months old at the time and that her consent was immaterial.

The victim appeared by video conference and stated that she had no objection to bail.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the circumstances on record, including the victim’s age, the evidence given at trial, and her position on bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, was the provision invoked for the applicant’s regular-bail request.

The prosecution invoked Sections 137(2), 64(2)(n) and 65(1) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act; the State argued that the victim’s alleged minority made consent irrelevant.

In deciding bail, it considered the case-specific circumstances, including the victim’s position, the evidence before the trial Court, completion of investigation, custody, and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court noted the State’s position that the victim was 15 years and 5 months old, but also considered her testimony before the trial Court that her date of birth was 5 April 2007 and that she was over 18 at the time of the incident.

She had also testified that she and the applicant were in a relationship, had married in a temple, and had consummated the marriage; both she and her mother had not supported the prosecution case.

Together with the victim’s stated lack of objection to bail, the completed investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s custody since 29 April 2026, these circumstances led the Court to find that bail was warranted, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to the trial Court’s satisfaction.

Conditions included not influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the case, not prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and attending each trial date until disposal.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.