Tripura HC Grants Bail to POCSO Accused After Six Months in Custody, Victim's Evidence Already Recorded

The High Court of Tripura allowed bail to a man facing POCSO and BNS charges, finding that the victim had already testified and prolonged custody was no longer justified.

Justice S. Datta Purkayastha of the High Court of Tripura, sitting singly at Agartala, granted bail on 22 May 2026 to Litan Debnath, who had been in custody since 19 November 2025 in connection with a POCSO case pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala. The accused faces trial under Sections 64(2)(f) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The court found that the victim had already deposed, five witnesses had been examined, and the primary ground of opposition, the risk of witness influence, had substantially weakened with the passage of time and the progress of trial.

The Bail Application Before the High Court

The bail application was filed by Smt. Runa Deb on behalf of the accused, Litan Debnath, her husband's relative. The case arises from Airport PS Case No. 2025 ARP 69 and is registered as Special (POCSO) 03 of 2026 before the trial court. Debnath was arrested on 19 November 2025 and had been in custody for over six months at the time of hearing.

Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ratan Datta, argued that trial had progressed considerably, with five witnesses already examined including the victim herself. He submitted that continued detention served no further purpose, that the accused would attend court regularly, and that he would not attempt to influence or intimidate any witness.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Raju Datta, opposed the application. On an earlier occasion, the PP had argued that the accused and the victim were cousin-siblings and that release would create a real risk of witness influence given their close relationship. At the final hearing, the PP pressed further, submitting that incriminating materials existed against the accused and that the victim had herself made statements supporting the charge. The PP urged rejection on account of the gravity of the offence.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Datta Purkayastha identified the State's principal objection as the risk of the accused influencing the victim and other witnesses, given that he is a close relative of the victim. The court then examined whether that concern retained its force at the current stage of proceedings.

The court observed that the victim's evidence had already been recorded. With that testimony on record, the central apprehension underpinning the prosecution's opposition had materially diminished. The accused had also been in custody for a long period. He is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of the trial court itself, and his counsel described him as a sub-contractor who is not an influential person.

Taking these factors together, the recording of the victim's evidence, the duration of custody, the accused's residential ties to the trial court's jurisdiction, and his stated occupation, the court allowed the bail prayer. Conditions were imposed to address the residual concern about witness contact.

Conditions Attached to Bail

The court directed that Litan Debnath be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of a like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala. The surety must be a permanent resident of the State of Tripura.

The accused is required to attend court regularly to face trial. He is prohibited from making any contact with any witness in the case, whether directly or indirectly, in a manner that could influence or intimidate them or deter them from “divulging truth before the Court.” The court made clear that violation of any of these conditions would be a good ground for cancellation of bail.

Outcome

BA No. 77 of 2026 was allowed and disposed of on 22 May 2026. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala. The CD was ordered to be returned to the Public Prosecutor along with a copy of the order, and the lower court record was also directed to be returned. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.