Grant of regular bail in kidnapping and POCSO cases where the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not support the prosecution's allegations.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 366(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since 22.10.2025. It is further submitted that in sum and substance, the allegation is of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant. It is next submitted that the victim and the petitioner were in love and they eloped on 06.02.2024 and thereafter the FIR came to be instituted on 04.04.2025. It is also submitted that the victim came back and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that earlier the father and the brother of the petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 66267 of 2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 23.10.2024 wherein this fact was taken note of that victim did not support the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the case was not instituted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that if the privilege of bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions aforesaid, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with Pupari P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024.

6. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release on bail, is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner in both the conditions the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.