The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that bail must be the norm, not the exception, even in cases under the POCSO Act when the relationship between the accused and the victim is consensual, age-proximate, and lacks evidence of coercion or exploitation. This ruling underscores the constitutional imperative of personal liberty under Article 21 and signals a nuanced judicial approach to adolescent relationships that do not fit the paradigm of predatory crime.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from an FIR registered against Karan Kori, a 21-year-old man, for allegedly abducting and sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl. The prosecutrix’s mother filed a missing complaint after the girl left home on 30 August 2025. The accused was arrested on 25 November 2025 and has remained in custody since. The prosecution alleges offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(M), 96 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Procedural History
- 30 August 2025: Prosecutrix leaves home; missing report filed
- November 2025: Accused arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- January 2026: Charge sheet filed by police
- February 2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023
The Parties' Positions
The applicant, through his counsel, contends:
- The prosecutrix, now a major, had voluntarily stayed with the accused for four months
- She had solemnized a marriage ceremony with him, as per her statement under Section 164 CrPC
- No medical examination was conducted post-recovery to corroborate assault
- DNA report does not support the prosecution’s version
- The accused is a young adult with no prior criminal record
The State opposes bail, arguing that the POCSO Act mandates strict adherence to its provisions, and the age of the victim (17 years 7 months) renders the relationship per se illegal, irrespective of consent.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail pending trial, citing prolonged detention, the absence of forensic evidence, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Anirudh.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied under the POCSO Act solely on the ground that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, when the relationship was consensual, age-proximate, and no evidence of force or exploitation exists.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on State of U.P. v. Anirudh to argue that consensual relationships between adolescents close in age must be treated differently from predatory sexual offences. They emphasized that Article 21 guarantees the right to liberty and that prolonged pre-trial detention without prima facie evidence of violence or coercion violates this right. The absence of medical evidence and the victim’s own statement supporting cohabitation were cited as material factors.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the POCSO Act is a special law designed to protect minors, and any consensual relationship with a person under 18 is automatically criminalized under Section 5(L). They argued that judicial discretion must yield to the legislative intent of deterrence and protection, and that granting bail in such cases undermines the Act’s purpose.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relationship, the age gap (just over three years), and the absence of any allegation of force, threat, or trafficking. It noted that the prosecutrix, now a major, had voluntarily lived with the accused for four months and had not retracted her statement under Section 164. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to produce any medical or forensic evidence to substantiate the charge of sexual assault.
"The relationship, if proven, falls within the realm of a Romeo and Juliet scenario, where the law must distinguish between exploitation and adolescent intimacy. Denial of bail in such cases, without concrete evidence of criminal intent or violence, runs counter to the foundational principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception."
The Court explicitly invoked State of U.P. v. Anirudh, which held that rigid application of POCSO without contextual analysis risks criminalizing normal adolescent behavior. It further emphasized that Article 21 requires courts to balance protection with liberty, especially where the accused is young and the evidence is weak. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case but found no compelling reason to deny bail.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that bail cannot be denied under the POCSO Act merely because the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged relationship, where the relationship appears consensual, age-proximate, and lacks evidence of coercion. The applicant was granted regular bail on personal bond with a solvent surety.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatic, But Must Be Seriously Considered
- Practitioners must now argue that POCSO cases involving consensual adolescent relationships require a contextual, not mechanical, application of the law
- Absence of medical evidence or forensic corroboration must be raised as a material factor in bail hearings
- Courts must distinguish between predatory acts and consensual intimacy between minors and near-adults
Age Proximity Matters in Judicial Discretion
- A gap of less than five years between accused and victim is now a relevant factor in bail applications
- The victim’s subsequent majority and voluntary statements can be used to challenge the prosecution’s narrative
- Courts are expected to evaluate whether the relationship fits the "Romeo and Juliet" paradigm before denying bail
Procedural Gaps Undermine Prosecution
- Failure to conduct timely medical examination of the victim weakens the prosecution’s case significantly
- Charge sheet filing does not equate to conclusive evidence; pre-trial detention must still satisfy the triple test for bail
- DNA reports contradicting the prosecution’s version must be highlighted as exculpatory material
