Can anticipatory bail be granted in a POCSO case where the victim is 17 and later claims a consensual relationship?

Yes, as held by the Patna High Court, anticipatory bail may be granted if the victim’s own statement under Section 183 B.N.S. 2023 affirms consensual conduct and marriage, and there is no prima facie evidence of coercion or exploitation.

Is the age of the victim alone sufficient to deny anticipatory bail under the POCSO Act?

No. The Court held that while the POCSO Act protects minors, age alone does not justify automatic arrest; the circumstances, including the victim’s statement and the absence of force or coercion, must be considered.

Can a victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S. 2023 be used to challenge the prosecution’s case at the bail stage?

Yes. The Court recognized that such statements form part of the investigation record and may be considered to assess the credibility of the complaint and the necessity of arrest.

Anticipatory bail in POCSO case after consensual elopement

The Patna High Court has clarified that mere allegations under the POCSO Act, where the victim is a minor nearing majority and later asserts a consensual relationship, do not warrant automatic arrest. The judgment underscores the necessity of prima facie evidence before depriving an individual of liberty, particularly where the victim’s own statement contradicts the prosecution narrative.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Ravindra Ram, is accused in a case registered under Sections 137(2), 96, 61(2), 64(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S. 2023), and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arises from allegations that on 07.04.2025, the petitioner abducted the victim, a girl aged approximately 17 years, and absconded with Rs. 50,000 and jewellery worth Rs. 1 lakh from her household.

Key Facts

The victim was allegedly seen leaving her home with the petitioner on 07.04.2025, carrying a bag
The informant, the victim’s father, reported the incident to police on the same day
The family and villagers later went to the petitioner’s residence, where they alleged verbal abuse and threats of false SC/ST Act implication
The victim returned home after several days
Her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S. 2023, wherein she stated she had voluntarily eloped with the petitioner and had since married him
The prosecution’s case hinges on the victim’s age at the time of the incident - alleged to be 17 years - but the petitioner argues she had attained majority
No physical evidence of abduction, coercion, or sexual assault has been cited in the FIR or subsequent investigation

Procedural History

07.04.2025: Alleged incident of elopement and disappearance
07.04.2025: FIR registered at PS Bagaha, Case No. 102 of 2025
Between 07.04.2025 and 04.05.2026: Investigation conducted; victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S. 2023
04.05.2026: Petitioner files Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 89154 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail

Relief Sought

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in PS Bagaha Case No. 102 of 2025, arguing that the allegations are false, motivated, and contradicted by the victim’s own testimony.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the mere allegation of sexual offence under the POCSO Act, where the victim is nearly of age and later asserts a consensual relationship and marriage, justifies the denial of anticipatory bail without a prima facie assessment of the credibility of the complaint.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S. 2023 explicitly negates the prosecution’s version, affirming voluntary association and marriage. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to emphasize that arrest cannot be automatic in cases involving non-bailable offences, especially where the allegations are contested by the victim. He further contended that the age of the victim, even if accepted as 17, does not establish non-consent, particularly where the victim has since come of age and affirmed the relationship.

For the Respondent/State

The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that the POCSO Act is a protective statute and any sexual activity with a minor under 18 is per se criminal, irrespective of consent. They contended that the victim’s subsequent statement may be influenced and cannot be relied upon at the bail stage. They also raised concerns about the potential for tampering with evidence and witness intimidation.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the victim’s recorded statement. It noted that while the POCSO Act is designed to protect children, its application must be tempered by the realities of the case, particularly where the victim is close to majority and has voluntarily retracted the allegations.

"The fact that the victim has returned home and, in her statement under Section 183, has affirmed a consensual relationship and marriage, cannot be ignored at the threshold of arrest. The law does not compel arrest merely because a minor is involved; the circumstances and credibility of the complaint must be evaluated."

The Court distinguished this case from those involving force, coercion, or exploitation of a child incapable of understanding the nature of the act. It held that where the victim’s own testimony undermines the prosecution’s case, the presumption of guilt cannot be applied mechanically. The Court further observed that the petitioner has no prior criminal record and the allegations, even if true, do not indicate a pattern of predatory conduct.

The Court also noted that the B.N.S. 2023, which replaced the CrPC, retains the spirit of Section 438 and mandates judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail, particularly where the allegations are not substantiated by independent evidence.

The Verdict

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. In the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from 04.05.2026, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to be approved by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-7th-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, West Champaran, Bettiah, in connection with PS Bagaha Case No. 102 of 2025. The bail is subject to all conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC or Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. 2023.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must now argue that a victim’s statement affirming consensual conduct, even if made after the incident, is a material factor in bail applications under POCSO
Courts cannot treat all POCSO cases as inherently non-bailable; the factual matrix, including the victim’s age and testimony, must be weighed
Where the victim is 17 and has since affirmed the relationship, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show coercion or exploitation beyond mere statutory age

Arrest Is Not Automatic in POCSO Cases

Arnesh Kumar remains binding: arrest must be justified by necessity, not presumption
Police cannot rely solely on the nature of the offence to justify arrest; the credibility of the complaint and the victim’s stance are critical
Courts must apply the triple test - possibility of flight, tampering, and repetition - before denying anticipatory bail

Victim’s Statement Under Section 183 B.N.S. Is Admissible at Bail Stage

Statements recorded under Section 183 B.N.S. 2023 are not mere hearsay; they are part of the investigation record and can be considered at the bail stage
A contradictory victim statement weakens the prosecution’s prima facie case and supports bail
Defence counsel should promptly seek and file such statements in bail applications to challenge the foundation of the case

POCSO Act | Consensual Elopement with Minor Does Not Automatically Justify Arrest: Patna HC Grants Anticipatory Bail