The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a POCSO case where the alleged sexual relationship with a minor was reportedly consensual, no incriminating digital evidence was recovered, and the parties have since settled. The Court emphasized that gravity of offence alone cannot override the principles of personal liberty under Article 21, particularly where there is no criminal antecedent, no risk of evidence tampering, and no likelihood of flight.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The High Court granted regular bail to the accused in a POCSO and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 case, holding that the absence of forensic evidence, the consensual nature of the relationship, the settlement between parties, and the accused’s clean record collectively negate the necessity of continued custody. The Court directed release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to strict conditions ensuring trial cooperation and witness protection.
Background & Facts
The accused, a 26-year-old driver, was arrested on 27 May 2025 following an FIR registered at Police Station Kanad, Agar Malwa. The complainant, a girl aged 17 years and 3 months, alleged that the accused offered her a lift on 10 March 2025, took her to a lodge, and committed penetrative sexual assault. She further claimed he threatened to viralize her photos and continued to have sexual relations with her on multiple occasions under duress. Her mother initially feared reporting the matter, but the family eventually approached the police after consulting the maternal uncle.
The investigation yielded no recovered obscene photographs or videos from the accused’s mobile device. The case was registered under Sections 137(2), 351(3), 127(2), 64, 74, 75 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The accused has been in judicial custody since 7 August 2025. His first bail application, filed earlier, was withdrawn on 22 August 2025. The trial has been delayed due to a vacancy in the Special Court for POCSO cases in Agar, with no foreseeable commencement date.
The applicant’s counsel contended that the relationship was romantic and consensual, and the allegations arose only after family opposition. The victim’s parents, through their counsel, expressed no objection to bail. The State opposed bail on grounds of the gravity of the offence but conceded the accused had no prior criminal record.
The Legal Issue
Can regular bail be granted in a POCSO case involving a minor where the relationship is alleged to be consensual, no incriminating digital or physical evidence exists, the parties have settled, and the accused has no criminal history or risk of flight?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the allegations stemmed from familial disapproval of a consensual romantic relationship between two youths. No obscene material was recovered from the accused’s phone, undermining the claim of threats to viralize images. The accused has stable employment, family roots, and property in the region, eliminating any risk of absconding. He has no prior criminal record and has cooperated fully with the investigation. The prolonged delay in trial, due to judicial vacancies, renders continued incarceration unjust. The victim’s family has withdrawn their hostility, and the matter is amicably resolved. The applicant is ready to appear before the court on all dates and comply with all conditions.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail on the basis that offences under POCSO and BNS are serious and attract mandatory stringent treatment. The gravity of penetrative sexual assault on a minor, even if consensual, cannot be overlooked. The State acknowledged the absence of criminal antecedents but maintained that the nature of the offence demands continued custody to preserve public confidence in the justice system. However, the State’s counsel conceded that the evidence on record was not strong enough to conclusively establish guilt at this stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured evaluation of the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mirrors the principles of Section 439 CrPC. It emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that while POCSO cases demand sensitivity, the law does not mandate automatic denial of bail merely because the offence is serious.
"The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence as also age of victim will be determined after evidence in the trial."
The Court held that the absence of corroborative evidence - particularly the lack of recovered digital content - undermines the prosecution’s narrative of coercion and threats. The Court further observed that the complainant’s delayed disclosure and eventual family-led reporting suggest a possible motive of social stigma rather than criminal victimization.
The Court rejected the notion that the mere existence of a minor victim automatically negates the applicability of bail. It cited the principle that the presumption of innocence remains intact until proven guilty. The accused’s clean record, stable socio-economic status, and absence of any history of evading process were decisive factors. The Court also noted that the victim’s family, through their counsel, had no objection to bail, which further weakened the State’s argument.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving predatory conduct, repeated exploitation, or use of force. Here, the facts suggest a relationship that turned contentious due to external family pressure. The Court concluded that incarceration without trial for an extended period, especially when the trial is delayed by systemic reasons, would violate the accused’s right to a speedy trial and personal liberty.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment provides a clear roadmap for bail applications in POCSO cases where the relationship between the accused and the minor is alleged to be consensual and no forensic or corroborative evidence supports the prosecution’s version. Practitioners may now argue that the absence of digital evidence, settlement between families, and lack of criminal antecedents are material factors warranting bail, even in serious offences.
The ruling reinforces that gravity of offence alone cannot override the constitutional right to liberty. It also underscores the importance of evaluating the credibility of allegations at the bail stage - not on their truth, but on their plausibility and evidentiary support. This is particularly relevant in cases involving adolescents in consensual relationships where family interference leads to criminal complaints.
However, the judgment is fact-specific. It does not create a blanket rule for all POCSO cases. Courts will continue to scrutinize the nature of the alleged conduct, the age gap, the presence of coercion, and the victim’s testimony. The conditions imposed here - no contact with the victim, no tampering with evidence, and mandatory court attendance - will likely become standard in similar applications.
The Court’s directive to reproduce bail conditions in Hindi on the bond also sets a useful precedent for ensuring accessibility and compliance in rural jurisdictions.
