Can bail be granted in a POCSO case where the victim is a minor but the act is alleged to be consensual?

Yes, bail can be granted if there is no allegation of force, threat, or exploitation, and the medical report does not indicate assault. The Court held that mere minority status does not automatically negate bail under the POCSO Act.

Is the medical report mandatory before granting bail in POCSO cases?

No, but its absence or pending status is a relevant factor. The Court held that where no force is alleged and the medical report is awaited, custodial detention is not justified pending its outcome.

Does Section 137(2) of the BNS, 2023, create a presumption against bail?

No. Section 137(2) of the BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse with a minor but does not create a statutory presumption against bail. The Court emphasized that bail must be decided on the facts of each case, not on the nature of the statute alone.

POCSO bail for consensual relationship with minor Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the mere fact of sexual intercourse with a minor under the POCSO Act does not, by itself, justify denial of bail when there is no allegation of force, coercion, or violence. This ruling underscores the necessity of distinguishing between consensual relationships and predatory conduct in cases involving adolescents near the age of majority.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sunil, a 21-year-old man, is accused of committing sexual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 4(1), 5(l), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arose after the victim, who was residing in Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, went missing on 27.12.2025. Her father, the second respondent and de facto complainant, filed a complaint on 28.12.2025 after she failed to return home.

Key Facts

The victim was born on 29.11.2009, making her 16 years and 28 days old on the date of the alleged offence (27.12.2025)
The victim later contacted her father and disclosed she had voluntarily left home with the petitioner
She stated she was friends with the petitioner and had gone to Bengaluru with him
They stayed near a theatre in Gollarahatti and spent the night together
Sexual intercourse occurred consensually, according to her statement
She returned home the next day, after which her father filed the complaint
The petitioner was arrested on the basis of this statement
The medical examination report, which could have indicated signs of force or injury, remains awaited
No allegation of physical violence, threat, or abduction has been made in the complaint or subsequent statements

Procedural History

27.12.2025: Alleged incident of consensual sexual intercourse
28.12.2025: Complaint filed by victim’s father at Bengaluru District Women Police Station
29.12.2025: Petitioner arrested in connection with Crime No. 308/2025
05.01.2026: Charge sheet filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Bengaluru Rural District
15.03.2026: Petitioner filed application under Section 483 of BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings or bail
26.03.2026: Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the Section 483 application
28.03.2026: Criminal Petition under Section 439 CrPC (also invoked under Section 483 BNSS) filed before the Karnataka High Court

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought bail in Crime No. 308/2025, arguing that the act was consensual, no force was used, and custodial detention was unnecessary given the absence of any threat to the investigation or public order.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether bail can be denied under the POCSO Act and BNSS Section 137(2) solely on the ground that the victim is a minor, even when the act is alleged to be consensual, no force is involved, and the medical report does not indicate any assault.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Learned counsel argued that the victim was nearly 17 years old and had willingly left her home to be with the petitioner. He emphasized that the complaint contained no allegation of abduction, threat, or physical violence. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana to support the proposition that consensual relationships between adolescents near the age of majority do not automatically warrant denial of bail. He further noted that the medical report, which could have corroborated or contradicted claims of force, was still pending, making custodial detention premature.

For the Respondent

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, did not oppose bail but urged the Court to impose strict conditions. The prosecution acknowledged the absence of any allegation of force and conceded that the victim’s statement indicated voluntary association. However, it emphasized the seriousness of offences under POCSO and the need to ensure the victim’s safety and the integrity of the trial.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary position. It noted that while the victim was a minor under the POCSO Act, the prosecution had not alleged any use of force, threat, or deception. The Court observed that the statutory framework under Section 137(2) of the BNS and Sections 4(1), 5(l), and 6 of the POCSO Act does not presume guilt or automatically negate bail merely because the victim is under 18.

"There appears to be no requirement of any custodial integration of the accused-petitioner, the medical report do not indicate any forcible assault. Matter requires consideration during the trial."

The Court distinguished this case from those involving predatory conduct, exploitation, or violence against minors. It held that the absence of any allegation of force, coupled with the pending medical report and the victim’s own account of consensual conduct, rendered detention unnecessary at this stage. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the accused is not a flight risk and the investigation is complete.

The Court also noted that the victim’s age, while legally significant, does not override the factual context of the relationship. The Court declined to treat this as a case of sexual exploitation and instead treated it as one requiring nuanced adjudication at trial.

The Verdict

The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the Criminal Petition under Section 483 BNSS and granted bail in Crime No. 308/2025. The petitioner is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one local surety of the like sum. He must appear regularly before the Trial Court, not tamper with witnesses, not commit similar offences, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. The order was communicated to the Trial Court and prison authorities forthwith.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must now argue that consensual sexual conduct between a minor aged 16 - 17 and a near-age adult does not, by itself, justify denial of bail under POCSO
The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate force, coercion, or exploitation
Medical reports are critical; pending reports should not be used to justify prolonged custody

Bail Is Not a Privilege But a Right in Non-Violent POCSO Cases

Courts must apply the triple test for bail (likelihood of flight, tampering, reoffending) even in POCSO cases
The gravity of the offence alone cannot override the presumption of innocence
This judgment reinforces Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar by requiring reasoned orders for denial of bail

Procedural Fairness Over Presumption of Guilt

The judgment cautions against treating all POCSO cases as inherently violent
Defence counsel should highlight the absence of force, victim’s testimony, and medical status in bail applications
Prosecutors must avoid blanket opposition to bail without specific grounds

POCSO Act & BNSS | Consensual Relationship with Minor Does Not Preclude Bail Absent Force or Coercion: Karnataka HC