In a significant exercise of judicial discretion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur granted regular bail to a minor accused in a POCSO and BNS case, emphasizing that both the accused and the victim were minors at the time of the incident. The Court declined to prejudge the merits while recognizing the unique circumstances of juvenile involvement.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Bhagwan Das Saket @ Rishu Saket, is accused in FIR/Crime No. 544/2025 registered at Police Station Mada, District Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh. The case involves allegations under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 64(1), 64(2)(f), 88, and 332(B) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6, 5(l)/6, 3/4(2), and 5(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The allegations center on sexual intercourse with a minor female, resulting in her pregnancy, followed by the applicant allegedly administering abortion pills without medical consultation.
Key Facts
- The applicant was born on 10.06.2007, making him 18 years and 4 months old at the time of his arrest on 23.10.2025
- The victim, also a minor at the time of the incident, was below 18 years of age
- Both parties were minors when the alleged sexual act occurred
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 23.10.2025
- The prosecution alleges the applicant caused the victim’s pregnancy and then induced abortion using pills without medical supervision
- No medical evidence or forensic report on the abortion pills is referenced in the order
Procedural History
- Date of incident: Not specified in the order, but implied to have occurred prior to 23.10.2025
- 23.10.2025: Applicant arrested and taken into custody
- FIR registered: 2025 (exact date not specified)
- 07.05.2026: Application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for regular bail
- 07.05.2026: Hearing before Justice Devnarayan Mishra, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
Counsel for the applicant argued that both the accused and the victim were minors at the time of the incident. He emphasized the applicant’s lack of education and innocence, suggesting that the circumstances reflect a tragic lapse rather than malicious intent. He urged the Court to consider the applicant’s age and lack of criminal antecedents in granting bail.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant’s actions - particularly the administration of abortion pills to a minor without medical supervision - constituted a grave violation of the POCSO Act and BNSS. The State argued that the seriousness of the offence, including potential harm to the victim’s health and the destruction of evidence, warranted continued custody.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, with conditions including personal bond and surety, and compliance with statutory bail conditions.
The Legal Issue
Can a minor accused, who was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence and whose victim was also a minor, be granted regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, despite the gravity of offences under POCSO and BNSS, without prejudging the merits of the case?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that the law must recognize the vulnerability and immaturity of minors involved in such cases. He cited the protective intent of the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to argue that the applicant’s age and lack of criminal history should weigh in favor of bail. He emphasized that the applicant was not a hardened offender and that detention without trial may cause irreparable harm to a juvenile’s development.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that offences under POCSO and BNSS, particularly those involving pregnancy and illegal abortion, are inherently heinous and attract stringent bail conditions. It argued that the administration of abortion pills without medical supervision constitutes a separate and serious offence under Section 332(B) of BNSS and Section 5(n)/6 of POCSO, warranting continued custody to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure victim safety.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not engage in a detailed analysis of the evidentiary merits or the legal interpretation of the specific provisions of BNSS or POCSO. Instead, it focused narrowly on the age of the parties at the time of the incident. The Court observed that both the applicant and the victim were minors when the alleged acts occurred. This dual minority status, the Court held, was a material circumstance warranting a humanitarian approach.
"Looking to the age of the parties and keeping in mind that at the time of incident, the applicant was also below the age of 18 years, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail."
The Court explicitly declined to comment on the merits of the case, indicating that its decision was not an endorsement of the applicant’s conduct but a recognition of the unique context of juvenile involvement. The Court relied on the broader principle of juvenile justice - namely, that minors, even when accused of serious offences, are entitled to procedural safeguards and opportunities for rehabilitation over punitive detention.
The Court also noted the absence of any prior criminal record, reinforcing the applicant’s status as a first-time offender. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Court prioritized the applicant’s age and the fact that he was a minor at the time of the alleged act over the severity of the charges.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court granted regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS. The applicant is directed to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount, to be approved by the trial court. He must comply with Section 480(3) of BNSS and appear before the trial court on all dates fixed during the pendency of trial. The Court made no comment on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Juvenile Status Overrides Gravity in Bail Decisions
- Practitioners may now argue that when both accused and victim are minors, the principle of juvenile protection under the Juvenile Justice Act and POCSO may override the presumption against bail in serious cases
- Courts may be more inclined to grant bail where the accused was under 18 at the time of the offence, even in POCSO cases involving pregnancy or abortion
Bail Conditions Must Be Tailored to Juvenile Needs
- Personal bonds with solvent sureties remain the standard, but courts may now consider non-custodial conditions more readily for minors
- Compliance with Section 480(3) of BNSS (e.g., surrender of passport, no contact with victim) becomes mandatory and must be strictly monitored
No Prejudgment of Merits in Bail Orders
- Courts are permitted to grant bail without evaluating evidentiary strength, provided the accused’s age and lack of criminal history are established
- This sets a precedent for bail applications in juvenile POCSO cases where the focus shifts from offence severity to developmental context
