The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a young student accused under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, holding that where the victim herself admits to a long-standing consensual relationship and forensic evidence is entirely negative, the presumption of guilt cannot override the right to liberty. The judgment underscores the necessity of rigorous evidentiary scrutiny in sexual offence cases, particularly where the complainant’s own testimony undermines the prosecution’s narrative.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sri Rudrappa, a 20-year-old student, is accused of kidnapping, assault, and sexual offence under Sections 137(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The case arose after the victim, a girl aged 17 years and 7 months at the time of the incident, was found with the petitioner in Hyderabad. Her family registered a complaint alleging abduction and sexual assault.
Key Facts
- The victim and petitioner had been in a romantic relationship for eight years prior to the incident.
- The victim eloped with the petitioner to Hyderabad on or about 31.01.2026 and stayed with him for three days.
- The victim was not questioned by police immediately upon return; her statement was recorded only after two days.
- The age proof submitted by the prosecution is a school certificate dated 24.03.2026, not a birth certificate.
- The FSL report examined eight biological samples (serial numbers 1 to 8) and returned negative results for all.
- The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and Section 183 BNS explicitly states:
- She was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner.
- There was no force, threat, or coercion.
- She desired to marry him.
- Physical contact occurred with mutual consent.
- She was not abducted or confined against her will.
Procedural History
- 31.01.2026: Victim elopes with petitioner to Hyderabad.
- 03.02.2026: Victim returns to her residence in Gajarkote village.
- 07.02.2026: Family files complaint with Gurmitkal Police Station.
- 08.02.2026: FIR No. 11/2026 registered under Sections 137(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) BNS and Section 6 POCSO.
- 10.02.2026: Victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
- 15.02.2026: FSL samples collected and sent for analysis.
- 24.03.2026: School certificate issued stating victim’s age as 17 years 7 months.
- 05.04.2026: FSL report received, all samples negative.
- 10.04.2026: Petitioner arrested.
- 15.04.2026: Petitioner applied for bail before the Trial Court; application rejected.
- 28.04.2026: Criminal Petition No. 200512/2026 filed before the Karnataka High Court under Section 439 CrPC and Section 483 BNSS.
- 07.05.2026: Hearing concluded before Justice T.M. Nadaf.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that the prosecution’s case is based on fabricated allegations arising from familial opposition to the consensual relationship, and that the absence of forensic evidence and the victim’s own testimony render the charges unsustainable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied under POCSO and BNS when the victim’s own statement under Section 183 BNS admits to a consensual relationship, the FSL report is entirely negative, and there is no evidence of force, threat, or abduction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on the victim’s recorded statement under Section 164 CrPC and Section 183 BNS, which explicitly stated the relationship was consensual and voluntary. He emphasized the absence of any biological evidence in the FSL report and cited Ramu v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.100796/2016, dated 23.08.2016), where a coordinate bench granted bail on similar facts. He argued that the prosecution’s case is motivated by familial vengeance and lacks credible corroboration.
For the Respondent
The State and the complainant opposed bail, contending that the victim’s age (17 years 7 months) triggers strict liability under POCSO, regardless of consent. They argued that the delay in recording the statement and the school certificate’s reliability raised doubts, and that the nature of the offences warranted continued custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and Section 183 BNS. The statement was clear, consistent, and voluntary: the victim affirmed an eight-year consensual relationship, described the elopement as mutual, and denied any use of force or coercion. The Court noted that the victim’s desire to marry the petitioner was unambiguous.
"The victim clearly stated that she eloped with the petitioner of her own free will, stayed with him for three days, and had physical contact without any compulsion."
The Court further observed that the FSL report, which tested eight biological specimens, returned negative results across all parameters. This absence of forensic evidence critically undermined the allegation of sexual assault.
The Court distinguished this case from typical POCSO prosecutions where the victim is a minor unable to consent and where the accused is in a position of authority. Here, the victim was nearly 18, had been in a long-term relationship, and her testimony was not only consistent but also exculpatory of the accused. The Court held that the prosecution’s case rested on suspicion and familial opposition, not on credible evidence.
The Court also noted that the school certificate, while not a birth certificate, was the only age proof available and was not challenged on grounds of fabrication. The Court declined to speculate on the victim’s motives, but emphasized that the law cannot ignore the victim’s own account when it is clear, unambiguous, and corroborated by forensic silence.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail in Crime No. 11/2026 of Gurmitkal Police Station, registered under Sections 137(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) BNS and Section 6 POCSO. He shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount, appear regularly before the Trial Court, not tamper with witnesses, not commit similar offences, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Corroboration Trump Presumption in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that consent by a nearly-majority victim, when clearly documented in her own statement, can rebut the presumption of non-consent under POCSO.
- FSL reports with negative results must be treated as material exculpatory evidence, not as irrelevant to the charge.
Evidentiary Gaps Cannot Sustain Pre-Trial Detention
- Courts must not grant bail denial solely on the basis of the nature of the offence when the prosecution’s own evidence contradicts its allegations.
- Delayed statements and familial complaints without independent corroboration are insufficient to override the right to liberty under Article 21.
Judicial Caution Against Familial Vengeance
- Cases arising from inter-caste or inter-faith relationships must be scrutinized for signs of fabricated charges.
- The Court’s reliance on the victim’s own testimony signals a shift toward treating minor victims as agents of their own narrative, not merely as passive objects of protection.
