The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted regular bail to a 20-year-old accused in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). While affirming that the consent of a minor is immaterial under the POCSO Act, the Court considered the young age of both the accused and the prosecutrix, along with the lack of flight risk or evidence tampering, to allow bail under Section 483 of BNSS. This judgment underscores the nuanced application of bail principles in cases involving minors, even where statutory protections are stringent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shrikant Patel Kirar, was accused in FIR/Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh. The offences alleged included:
- Sections 137(2), 87, 96, 65(1), and 65(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS)
- Sections 3/4, 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
- Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
The prosecutrix was under the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged incident, and her consent was claimed to be immaterial under the POCSO Act. The applicant had been in custody since 23.02.2026.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix was a minor (under 18 years) at the time of the alleged offence.
- The applicant, aged 20 years, claimed the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
- The DNA report was positive, linking the applicant to the offence.
- The applicant had been in judicial custody since 23.02.2026.
Procedural History
- 23.02.2026: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- FIR/Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Police Station Pipariya.
- MCRC No. 30937 of 2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- 10.07.2026: Bail application heard and allowed by the High Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on regular bail, arguing:
- He was innocent and falsely implicated.
- The prosecutrix was a consenting party.
- There was no risk of his absconding or tampering with evidence.
- He had been in custody for nearly five months without trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS could be granted to an accused charged under the POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, where the prosecutrix was a minor, her consent was immaterial, and the DNA report was positive, but the accused was young and had no flight risk.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant was innocent and falsely implicated in the case.
- The prosecutrix was a consenting party, despite being a minor.
- The applicant, aged 20, had no history of absconding or tampering with evidence.
- Prolonged custody without trial warranted bail on humanitarian grounds.
For the Respondent/State
- The prosecutrix was under 18 years, making her consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act.
- The DNA report was positive, establishing a prima facie case against the applicant.
- The offences were grave, warranting denial of bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which typically make bail difficult to secure. However, it relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 40), which emphasized a balanced approach in bail matters, particularly where the accused is young and there is no flight risk.
The Court noted:
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the applicant as well as the prosecutrix and in the light of observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anurudh and another, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail."
The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but held that the applicant's prolonged custody, coupled with his young age and lack of flight risk, justified the grant of bail.
The Verdict
The applicant, Shrikant Patel Kirar, was granted regular bail on the following terms:
- Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount.
- Compliance with Section 480(3) of BNSS, ensuring his appearance before the trial court on all fixed dates.
- The bail was granted without prejudice to the merits of the case, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Not Automatic, Even Under Stringent Laws
This judgment reinforces that while laws like the POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are stringent, courts retain discretion to grant bail in exceptional circumstances. Practitioners should argue:
- The age of the accused and lack of flight risk as mitigating factors.
- Prolonged custody without trial as a ground for bail, even in grave offences.
- The balancing act between statutory protections for victims and the rights of the accused.
DNA Evidence Alone May Not Preclude Bail
- The Court granted bail despite a positive DNA report, indicating that forensic evidence alone may not be conclusive for denying bail.
- Defence counsel can argue that DNA evidence is circumstantial and must be weighed alongside other factors like the accused's age, custody duration, and conduct.
Compliance with Bail Conditions Is Non-Negotiable
- The Court directed strict compliance with Section 480(3) of BNSS, emphasizing that bail conditions must be adhered to rigorously.
- Failure to comply may result in revocation of bail and could prejudice the accused's case in subsequent hearings.
