POCSO Act | Bail Granted Despite Minor Pregnancy Due to Free Will Statement : Allahabad HC

In a significant bail order, the Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused charged under the POCSO Act, despite the victim being a minor and pregnant. The Court relied on the victim's statement that she left home of her own free will and entered into a matrimonial alliance with the applicant, while also noting the absence of proper age verification documents. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in age determination and the weight given to victim statements in bail considerations under serious offenses.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Kitab Singh, was arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2026, registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case arose from an FIR lodged by the father of a minor girl, alleging that an unknown person had enticed away his daughter. The applicant and the victim were later recovered by the police.

Key Facts

• The FIR was registered on an unspecified date in 2026 at Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad
• The victim, in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), stated that she had left her home of her own free will and entered into a matrimonial alliance with the applicant in a temple
• The victim's age was claimed to be around 16 years based on a declaration issued by the Headmaster of her Class 5th school
• No High School certificate, certificate of the school first attended, or radiological examination was conducted to determine the victim's age
• The victim was found to be pregnant at the time of the proceedings
• The applicant has been in jail since 18.4.2026
• The applicant has a criminal history of one case, in which he is currently on bail

Procedural History

• Case Crime No. 184 of 2026: Registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act
• 18.4.2026: Applicant arrested and remanded to custody
• Bail Application No. 22823 of 2026: Filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking bail during the pendency of trial
• 8.7.2026: High Court allows the bail application

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicant

• Argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case
• Emphasized the victim's statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, where she admitted leaving home of her own free will and entering into a matrimonial alliance with the applicant
• Highlighted the lack of proper age verification documents, including the absence of a High School certificate, certificate of the school first attended, and radiological examination
• Pointed out that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 18.4.2026 and has a criminal history of only one case, in which he is on bail
• Assured that the applicant would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings

For the State

• Opposed the bail application, arguing that the victim is a minor girl aged about 15-16 years and is pregnant
• Did not dispute the factual submissions made by the applicant's counsel regarding the victim's statement and the lack of age verification documents

Relief Sought

The applicant sought release on bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his cooperation in the trial proceedings.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the applicant, charged under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act and other provisions, should be granted bail despite the victim being a minor and pregnant, in light of:

1. The victim's statement that she acted of her own free will
2. The absence of proper age verification documents
3. The applicant's prolonged detention and criminal history

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• Relied on the victim's statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS to argue that the applicant was not guilty of enticing the victim, as she left home voluntarily
• Highlighted the lack of proper age verification, which casts doubt on the victim's minority status
• Emphasized the applicant's prolonged detention since 18.4.2026 and his limited criminal history
• Assured the Court of the applicant's cooperation in the trial proceedings if granted bail

For the Respondent

• Opposed the bail application on the grounds that the victim is a minor and pregnant, which are aggravating factors under the POCSO Act
• Did not dispute the factual accuracy of the applicant's submissions regarding the victim's statement and age verification

The Court's Analysis

The Court carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submissions of both parties. The Court noted the following key points:

1. The victim's statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, where she admitted leaving her home of her own free will and entering into a matrimonial alliance with the applicant
2. The absence of proper age verification documents, including a High School certificate, certificate of the school first attended, and radiological examination
3. The applicant's prolonged detention since 18.4.2026
4. The applicant's criminal history, which consists of only one case in which he is on bail

The Court also took into account the overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts, as well as the mandate of the Supreme Court's judgment in Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 and the guidelines issued by the Allahabad High Court in Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding the grant of bail.

"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail."

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but found that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail subject to certain conditions.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant, Kitab Singh, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, or tamper with the evidence
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail
4. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him

The Court further directed:

• The trial court to verify the identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties before accepting the bonds
• Verification of the mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant and sureties by the trial court
• The trial court to send the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure the early release of the applicant
• The office to send a copy of the order to the applicant through the concerned Jail Superintendent via email or e-prison portal within 24 hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021

What This Means For Similar Cases

Procedural Compliance in Age Determination

This judgment highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance in age determination under the POCSO Act and related offenses:

• Documentary Evidence: Courts may give weight to the absence of proper age verification documents, such as High School certificates, certificates of the school first attended, and radiological examinations. Practitioners should ensure that all available documents are presented to establish the victim's age conclusively
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proving the victim's minority lies on the prosecution. In the absence of proper documentation, the Court may be inclined to grant bail, especially if the victim's statement suggests voluntary action

Victim Statements and Bail Considerations

• Free Will Statements: Courts may consider the victim's statement regarding her free will, especially when it contradicts the allegations in the FIR. Practitioners should highlight such statements to argue for bail
• Aggravating Factors: While factors like pregnancy may be considered aggravating, they may not be sufficient to deny bail if the victim's statement and lack of proper age verification weaken the prosecution's case

Bail Jurisprudence in Serious Offenses

• Judicial Precedents: The Court relied on recent judgments, including Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., which emphasize the need to consider overcrowded jails and case pendency in bail decisions. Practitioners should cite these precedents to strengthen bail applications
• Conditions for Bail: Courts may impose stringent conditions to ensure the accused's cooperation in the trial and prevent misuse of bail liberty. Practitioners should be prepared to argue for reasonable conditions that do not unduly restrict the accused's rights

This judgment serves as a reminder that even in serious offenses like those under the POCSO Act, bail may be granted if the prosecution fails to establish key facts, such as the victim's minority, and if the victim's statement suggests voluntary action.