Does the age of the prosecutrix automatically bar bail in POCSO cases?

No. The judgment clarifies that while POCSO is a protective statute, the age of the prosecutrix alone does not mandate denial of bail. Courts must examine the factual matrix, including the nature of the relationship, presence of coercion, and the prosecutrix’s own statements.

What role do Sections 180 and 183 BNSS statements play in bail applications?

Statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS are formal, judicially recorded testimonies. This judgment holds that such statements, if clear and consistent, are highly probative in bail applications and can rebut presumptions of exploitation or coercion in POCSO cases.

POCSO bail consent prosecutrix Rajasthan HC

Q: Can bail be granted in a POCSO case if the prosecutrix is a minor but consents to the relationship?

Yes, as per this judgment, bail under Section 483 of the BNSS may be granted if the prosecutrix, despite being a minor, clearly states that the relationship was consensual, she left voluntarily, and she does not wish to prosecute. The court emphasized that consent and voluntariness, when documented, can override automatic denial of bail.

In a significant development in POCSO jurisprudence, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to an accused where the prosecutrix, though a minor, voluntarily entered into a consensual relationship and explicitly declined to pursue prosecution. The judgment underscores that procedural fairness and the prosecutrix’s unequivocal testimony can outweigh presumptive rigidity in bail applications under the BNSS.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sheraram S/o Kalyanmal @ Keleram, aged 25 years, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 74/2025 registered at Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 137(2), 127(4), and 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 5(L)/6 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The alleged offence arose from a relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who was aged 15 years and 9 months at the time.

Key Facts

The prosecutrix and the petitioner were in a romantic relationship and planned to marry
On 22.05.2025, both left together voluntarily, without coercion or force
They traveled to various locations in Gujarat and worked in agricultural fields for approximately three months
They were located and recovered by authorities on 17.08.2025
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.08.2025
Statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) clearly state that she left of her own free will, engaged in a consensual physical relationship, and does not wish to take any legal action against the petitioner
The investigation was completed, and the charge sheet was filed

Procedural History

22.05.2025: Petitioner and prosecutrix left together voluntarily
17.08.2025: Both recovered by authorities; petitioner arrested same day
17.08.2025: FIR No. 74/2025 registered at Police Station Mundwa
06.05.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, arguing that the prosecutrix’s voluntary consent, the absence of any allegation of force or trafficking, and the prolonged duration of custody warranted release pending trial.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether bail under Section 483 of the BNSS can be granted in a POCSO case where the prosecutrix, though a minor, has unequivocally stated that the relationship was consensual, she left voluntarily, and she does not wish to prosecute.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Learned counsel argued that the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS were clear, consistent, and recorded before a Magistrate. She affirmed her free will, the absence of any coercion, and her desire not to pursue the case. Counsel emphasized that the investigation was complete, no flight risk was indicated, and the trial would likely take years. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue against automatic denial of bail based on the nature of the offence alone.

For the Respondent

The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed bail, contending that POCSO offences are non-bailable by nature and that the age disparity and statutory protections for minors necessitate strict custody. They argued that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant under POCSO and that granting bail would undermine the statute’s protective intent.

The Court's Analysis

The Court carefully examined the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, noting their formal recording and absence of contradiction. It observed that while the prosecutrix was a minor, her testimony was not only consistent but also affirmatively stated her voluntary participation and lack of desire to prosecute. The Court held that the statutory framework of POCSO does not mandate automatic denial of bail when the facts reveal no exploitation, coercion, or trafficking.

"The prosecutrix has clearly stated that she left on her own will, established a relationship with the petitioner, and was planning to marry him."

The Court distinguished this case from those involving abduction, grooming, or exploitation, noting that the relationship was mutual and sustained over months without any indication of force. It emphasized that Section 483 of the BNSS empowers courts to grant bail if the conditions of fairness, non-fleeing, and absence of threat to justice are met. The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case but found no grounds to deny bail on procedural or evidentiary grounds.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over eight months, the investigation was complete, and no apprehension of tampering or flight was raised by the prosecution.

The Verdict

The bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS was allowed. The petitioner, Sheraram S/o Kalyanmal @ Keleram, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 74/2025 of Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, provided he is not wanted in any other case. He is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever summoned, until the conclusion of the trial.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must now meticulously document and highlight prosecutrix statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS where consent and voluntariness are asserted
The mere fact of age disparity does not automatically negate bail eligibility if the relationship is demonstrably consensual and non-exploitative
Courts may now weigh prosecutrix testimony as a material factor in bail decisions under Section 483 BNSS, even in POCSO cases

Investigation Completion Is a Critical Factor

Once the investigation is closed and the charge sheet filed, the presumption of flight or tampering weakens significantly
Delay in trial alone, when coupled with prolonged custody, becomes a compelling ground for bail under BNSS
Courts are expected to avoid mechanical application of "non-bailable" labels in POCSO when facts indicate absence of predatory conduct

Procedural Rigor Over Presumption

The judgment reinforces that procedural fairness under BNSS supersedes blanket statutory presumptions
Lawyers should file affidavits or certified copies of prosecutrix statements early in bail applications to preempt opposition
This precedent may be cited to argue for bail in similar cases involving adolescent relationships with minimal coercion, especially where the minor has expressed a clear desire not to proceed

BNSS Section 483 | Prosecutrix's Consent and Consensual Relationship Override POCSO Bail Presumption : Rajasthan HC