Bail may be granted in serious offenses, including POCSO, when prima facie evidence suggests family animosity and when the victim's statement is already recorded, removing the risk of witness tampering.

Order

This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.201/2025 registered at Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 127(2), 351(3) and 64(1) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case, on 05.10.2025, when the victim was allegedly proceeding to her uncle’s house, she met the petitioner on the way, whereupon the petitioner is stated to have forcibly pulled her into his house and committed sexual assault/rape upon her.

Learned counsel further submits that due to previous animosity and family disputes between the parties, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the prosecution story appears highly improbable inasmuch as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in a house situated on a busy lane, yet no one noticed the alleged act, nor were the victim’s cries for help heard by any person. Learned counsel also draws attention to the medical examination report of the victim, wherein no injuries were found on any part of her body.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the statements of the victim have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW-01, and therefore, there is no likelihood of the petitioner influencing her or tampering with the evidence. The trial of the case is not likely to conclude in the near future and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve the benefit of bail. However, learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute that the statements of the victim, prima facie, indicate the existence of old family disputes between the parties and that the petitioner and the victim were previously known to each other. It is also not disputed that the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the competent Court and that there is no specific apprehension of the petitioner influencing the victim or any other material prosecution witness, nor has any apprehension been shown that the petitioner would abscond if enlarged on bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Prakash S/o Ram Lal Balai, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.201/2025 registered at Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.