PoCSO Act & BNSS | Consensual Relationship Between Minor and Adult Not Automatic Ground for Detention: Kerala HC Grants Bail

In a significant bail order under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (PoCSO) Act, the Kerala High Court has underscored that consensual relationships between an accused and a minor victim, particularly when both parties are close in age, may not automatically justify continued detention. The judgment highlights the need for individualized assessment of bail applications, even in serious offences, when the investigation is complete and no prima facie evidence of coercion exists.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Sudhi@Kannan, aged 22, was accused in Crime No. 231/2026 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under Sections 4(2) r/w 3(a), 8 r/w 7, and 6 r/w 5(l), (j)(ii) of the PoCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The victim, a 15-year-old girl studying in the 10th standard, alleged that the applicant took her to Varkala beach and subsequently to a hotel, where he forcibly removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse. The prosecution further alleged that the applicant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions, resulting in her pregnancy.

Key Facts

• The victim and the applicant were in a romantic relationship, as evidenced by their statements
• The victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant to a lodge on multiple occasions and engaged in consensual sexual activity
• The First Information Statement (FIS) recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) identified the accused as Vipin, raising questions about the investigation's accuracy
• The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2026
• The final report has been filed, indicating the completion of the investigation
• The applicant has no criminal antecedents

Procedural History

• Crime No. 231/2026 registered at Attingal Police Station for offences under PoCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
• 03.03.2026: Applicant remanded to judicial custody
• 29.04.2026: Order passed by Additional District & Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram (Annexure 2)
• 01.06.2026: Subsequent order passed by Additional District & Sessions Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram (Annexure 3)
• 29.06.2026: Present bail application (B.A. No. 3158 of 2026) filed under Section 483 of BNSS before Kerala High Court

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicant (Accused):

• Contended that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated
• Argued that no materials connect the applicant to the alleged crime, entitling him to bail

For the Respondent (State):

• Submitted that the alleged incident was part of the applicant’s intentional criminal acts
• Opposed bail, arguing that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage

Relief Sought

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, arguing that his continued detention was unwarranted given the completion of the investigation and the consensual nature of the relationship.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether continued detention of the accused is justified under the PoCSO Act when:

1. The investigation is complete and the final report has been filed,
2. The victim and accused were in a consensual relationship, and
3. There is no prima facie evidence of coercion or force.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the case
• No materials connect the applicant to the alleged crime, entitling him to bail
• The FIS incorrectly named the accused as Vipin, casting doubt on the investigation’s accuracy
• The victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS indicates a consensual relationship, undermining the prosecution’s case of coercion

For the Respondent

• The alleged incident was part of the applicant’s intentional criminal acts
• The gravity of the offences under the PoCSO Act warrants denial of bail
• The applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage of the proceedings

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a fact-specific analysis of the bail application, emphasizing the following key considerations:

1. Completion of Investigation: The Court noted that the investigation is over and the final report has been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

2. Consensual Nature of the Relationship: The Court observed that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS indicated that she and the applicant were in a romantic relationship and had consensual sexual intercourse on multiple occasions. This fact significantly weakened the prosecution’s allegation of coercion.

3. Discrepancies in the Investigation: The Court highlighted that the FIS incorrectly identified the accused as Vipin, raising concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the investigation. This discrepancy cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

4. Lack of Criminal Antecedents: The Court noted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, further tilting the balance in favor of granting bail.

5. Age Proximity: The Court considered the age proximity between the applicant (22 years) and the victim (15 years), which suggested a consensual dynamic rather than predatory behavior.

"A reading of the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS would show that they were in love and both of them voluntarily went to the lodge on more than one occasion and had consensual sex. For these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose."

The Court concluded that continued detention was not justified under the circumstances, particularly given the consensual nature of the relationship and the completion of the investigation.

The Verdict

The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release on the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

2. The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

3. The applicant shall not attempt to contact any prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly, or tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

4. The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

5. Any application for modification or cancellation of bail conditions shall be filed before the jurisdictional court.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Consensual Relationships Between Minors and Young Adults

This judgment establishes that consensual relationships between minors and young adults may not automatically justify continued detention under the PoCSO Act, particularly when:

• The investigation is complete,
• There is no evidence of coercion or force, and
• Both parties are close in age.

Practitioners should argue that individualized assessment is required in such cases, rather than a blanket denial of bail based solely on the gravity of the offence.

Discrepancies in Investigation Can Favor Bail

• The Court’s reliance on discrepancies in the FIS (e.g., incorrect identification of the accused) highlights that investigative lapses can weaken the prosecution’s case and favor bail.
• Defence counsel should scrutinize investigation records for inaccuracies, as these can be decisive factors in bail applications.

Completion of Investigation as a Key Factor

• Courts are more inclined to grant bail when the investigation is complete and the final report has been filed, as the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence is minimized.
• Prosecutors opposing bail must demonstrate ongoing risks (e.g., threat to witnesses) even after the investigation’s completion.

Bail Conditions Under BNSS

• The Court imposed strict bail conditions, including a bond with sureties, restrictions on contacting witnesses, and geographical limitations.
• Practitioners should note that bail under Section 483 BNSS is not unconditional and may include onerous conditions to ensure compliance.

This judgment serves as a precedent for balancing the severity of PoCSO offences with the principles of bail jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving consensual relationships between minors and young adults.