First-time offenders may be granted bail if they have served one-third of the maximum sentence, especially when the victim's witnesses do not appear.

JUDGMENT

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter ‘ BNSS ’] has been filed on behalf of the applicant, seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. 0103/2023, registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 354/354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] and Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter „POCSO Act’].

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 26.03.2023, the accused/applicant herein had visited the house of the victim when her parents were away for work, at 06:00 pm, and on finding the victim alone in the house, he had put his hand inside her T-shirt and had inappropriately pressed her chest. It is also alleged that thereafter, the accused had inserted his hand inside the pants of the victim, touched her genitals and made certain inappropriate comments. The victim had revealed the incident to her neighbour, who had made a call to the mother of the victim and asked her to rush back home. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the mother of the victim, the present FIR was registered. During investigation, counselling of the victim was conducted by CIC Counsellor, and her medical examination was conducted at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟). The present accused/applicant was arrested on 27.03.2023 and since then, he has been in judicial custody. After the conclusion of investigation, chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were filed on 24.05.2023 and 21.09.2023 respectively, and charges were framed against the present applicant. The first and second bail applications filed by the applicant before the learned Trial Court were dismissed vide orders dated 09.05.2024 and 20.10.2024 respectively.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, and the entire allegations against him are concocted and fabricated. It was argued that the applicant is a 60 year old man, suffering from several health ailments, and he has been in judicial custody for more than 1½ years.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while the present bail application was filed before this Court in November, 2024, the jail authorities themselves had forwarded a letter to the learned Trial Court in December 2024 regarding completion of one-third of the maximum sentence which may be awarded to the applicant if he is convicted in the present case. Alongwith the said letter, an application for grant of bail was also sent by the Jail authorities to the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel however contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to adjudicate the said bail application for the last two months and the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS was being denied to the present applicant.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State opposed the present bail application. He contended that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and no case was made out for grant of regular bail as material witnesses are yet to be examined.

6. The arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties were heard. The material placed on record has also been pursued by this Court.

7. In the present case, this Court notes that the mother of the victim had appeared before the learned Trial Court on 09.05.2024 and not opposed the bail application of the applicant, however, the said application was dismissed inter alia on the ground that it appeared that the accused may have threatened the victim and her mother.

However, the mother of the victim had appeared before this Court also, on 20.12.2024, and given a