The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail to a childless couple accused in a complex case involving illegal adoption of a child born to a minor girl, emphasizing their limited role, the absence of criminal intent, and the principle of parity with co-accused already released on bail. The judgment underscores that even in serious offences under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act, bail may be granted where the accused’s involvement is passive, bona fide, and not rooted in exploitation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Mona Barve and Ravi Barve, residents of Durg, Chhattisgarh, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Bortalab, Rajnandgaon. They are accused under Sections 61(1), 337, 338, 339, 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Sections 4 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The case arises from the alleged illegal adoption of a male child born to a 15-year-old minor girl.
Key Facts
- The victim, a minor girl aged approximately 15 years, became pregnant in March 2025 after a consensual relationship with another minor, Aditya Verma.
- She delivered the child on 10.10.2025 at Kumud Mohabe Hospital, Rajnandgaon.
- The hospital staff, including Dr. Vijay Nagvanshi, allegedly forged the child’s birth certificate and facilitated the transfer of the child to the applicants.
- The applicants, who are illiterate and childless, were approached by the victim’s relatives - Goverdhan Yadav and Vinita Bai Yadav - who presented a notarized affidavit ("Godnama") claiming the child was theirs.
- The applicants consulted a doctor who assured them the adoption was lawful, and they subsequently took custody of the child without knowledge of the illegality.
- The applicants have been caring for the child since 10.10.2025 until their arrest.
- The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, expressed no objection to the applicants being granted bail.
Procedural History
- 10.10.2025: Child born and allegedly transferred to applicants.
- Late 2025: Victim’s pregnancy discovered; FIR registered at Police Station Bortalab.
- Early 2026: Arrest of applicants and other co-accused, including Dr. Vijay Nagvanshi and Goverdhan Yadav.
- 25.03.2026: Co-accused Dr. Vijay Nagvanshi granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 180 of 2026.
- 25.03.2026: Co-accused Geshu Dewangan granted regular bail in MCRC No. 2137 of 2026.
- 30.04.2026: Present bail application filed under Section 483 of BNS, 2023.
- 30.04.2026: Victim appeared via video conferencing and stated no objection to bail.
The Parties' Positions
Applicants’ Position: They are innocent, misled by co-accused, acted in good faith, had no criminal intent, and were unaware of the victim’s age or the illegality of the adoption. They relied on a notarized affidavit and medical assurance. Their role is limited to post-birth adoption.
State’s Position: The applicants knowingly participated in an illegal adoption involving a minor, forgery of official documents, and exploitation under POCSO. Their involvement is integral to the offence and poses a risk of tampering with evidence.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending trial.
The Legal Issue
Can regular bail be granted to accused persons in a serious case under POCSO and JJ Act where their involvement is limited to post-birth adoption, they acted without criminal intent, co-accused have already been released on bail, and the victim has expressed no objection?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants’ counsel argued that the applicants were deceived by the co-accused, who presented a notarized affidavit and medical assurance. They are illiterate, childless, and acted out of compassion. Their role was passive and confined to accepting custody after birth. They have been caring for the child since 10.10.2025. Parity with co-accused already on bail - Dr. Nagvanshi and Geshu Dewangan - supports their release. The victim’s non-objection further negates any risk of prejudice.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the applicants knowingly participated in an illegal adoption scheme involving forgery of birth records and concealment of the child’s origin. The offences under POCSO and JJ Act are grave, involving exploitation of a minor. Their arrest was necessary to prevent tampering and ensure trial integrity. The fact that they received the child through forged documents indicates complicity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful balancing of the nature of the allegations against the applicants’ actual role. It noted that while the offences are serious, the applicants’ involvement does not extend to the pregnancy, delivery, or forgery of documents. The Court emphasized that the applicants were not the primary actors in the illegal transfer or fabrication of records.
"The role attributed to the present applicants is limited to adoption of the child and further taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS..."
The Court placed significant weight on the fact that two co-accused - Dr. Vijay Nagvanshi and Geshu Dewangan - had already been granted bail by the same Court, and the applicants’ factual position was materially similar. The principle of parity, a well-established doctrine in bail jurisprudence, was applied to ensure equal treatment under similar circumstances.
The Court also considered the victim’s unambiguous statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she expressed no objection to the applicants being released on bail. This was treated as a critical mitigating factor, indicating that the victim does not perceive the applicants as perpetrators of harm.
Further, the Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the risk of evidence tampering. The trial is expected to be protracted, and prolonged incarceration without trial would violate the applicants’ right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the applicants’ illiteracy and reliance on a notarized document absolve them of responsibility, but held that these factors, combined with their passive role and lack of prior criminal antecedents, justified the grant of bail.
The Verdict
The applicants, Mona Barve and Ravi Barve, succeeded in their bail application. The Court granted regular bail subject to the following conditions: (i) they shall not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) they must appear before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; (iii) if a proclamation is issued under Section 84 of BNSS and they fail to appear, proceedings under Section 209 of BNSS shall be initiated; and (iv) they must appear personally for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. Failure to comply with any condition may be treated as abuse of bail and result in cancellation. The trial court was directed to receive a certified copy of this order forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limited Role Can Justify Bail Even in Serious Offences
- Practitioners may argue that passive involvement in crimes under POCSO or JJ Act - such as post-birth adoption without knowledge of illegality - does not equate to active exploitation.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove active participation or intent; mere receipt of a child through forged documents is insufficient without evidence of collusion.
Parity with Co-Accused Is a Valid Ground for Bail
- Where co-accused with similar factual roles have been granted bail, denial to others without distinction violates Article 14.
- Courts must examine the nature of each accused’s involvement, not merely the charge sheet’s broad allegations.
Victim’s Non-Objection Carries Weight in Bail Decisions
-
In cases involving minors, the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS is admissible and may be decisive.
-
A victim’s expressed willingness to see the accused released on bail undermines the State’s claim of risk to trial integrity.
-
Always request and highlight victim statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS in bail applications.
-
Argue for parity by citing bail orders of co-accused with identical or lesser roles.
-
Emphasize the absence of criminal intent, especially where accused are illiterate or rely on apparent legal documentation.
