The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail in a POCSO case where the victim’s own statement undermined the prosecution’s case, highlighting that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be justified when the evidence is weak and the parties share a consensual relationship. This order reinforces that bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must be guided by the realities of the evidence, not merely the nature of the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mahipal Bhati @ Mahaveer Bhati, a 21-year-old resident of Soorsagar, Jodhpur, was arrested and lodged in Central Jail Jodhpur following an FIR registered on 05.02.2026 at Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur Rural. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 96 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.), and Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The complainant is Smt. Geet Devi, mother of the alleged victim, who is a minor.
Key Facts
- The victim, a minor girl, is stated to be approximately 15 years of age at the time of the alleged incident
- The petitioner and the victim were reportedly in a consensual romantic relationship prior to the filing of the FIR
- The victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, admitted to having a friendship with the petitioner
- The victim did not allege force, coercion, or non-consensual conduct in her statements
- The petitioner claims that he has since married the victim in a customary ceremony
- The petitioner has been in custody since 10.02.2026
- No forensic or medical evidence was cited in the FIR or supporting documents
- The prosecution’s case rests primarily on the mother’s complaint and the victim’s initial statement, which later contradicted the allegations
Procedural History
- 05.02.2026: FIR No. 40/2026 registered at Police Station Khedapa
- 10.02.2026: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- 06.04.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that he was falsely implicated, the victim’s own statements disprove the allegations, and the trial is likely to be protracted. He requested release on personal bond with sureties and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be granted in a POCSO case where the victim’s statement contradicts the prosecution’s narrative and the relationship between the accused and victim is consensual, without evidence of coercion or exploitation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 183 of B.N.S.S. clearly indicate a consensual friendship and do not support the allegations of sexual offence. He emphasized that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.02.2026 and the trial is likely to extend for years, making continued detention unjustified. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and custody must not be automatic in cases where the evidence is weak and the accused is not a flight risk.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed bail, asserting that POCSO cases involve serious offences against minors and that the gravity of the allegations, even if contested, warrants continued custody. They argued that the victim’s later statements may be influenced and that the court must err on the side of caution in protecting minors.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, and found them to be inconsistent with the prosecution’s case. The victim’s admission of a consensual relationship significantly weakened the foundation of the allegations under Section 11 read with Section 12 of POCSO, which require proof of sexual assault or exploitation.
"Considering the facts of the case more particularly that the victim in her statement has admitted to the friendship between the parties; the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, does not support the case of the prosecution; looking to the age of the victim as well as the petitioner; the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2026; and there is high probability that the trial of the case will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the present matter."
The Court noted that while POCSO cases demand sensitivity, the law does not mandate automatic denial of bail. The absence of corroborative evidence, the victim’s own account, and the prolonged nature of the trial weighed in favor of bail. The Court emphasized that bail is not an acquittal and that the trial must proceed on its merits.
The Verdict
The bail application was allowed. The petitioner, Mahipal Bhati @ Mahaveer Bhati, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He shall not tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case. The Court clarified that its observations are strictly for bail purposes and shall not prejudice the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Victim’s Consistent Statement Can Override Presumption of Guilt
- Practitioners must prioritize the victim’s recorded statements under Sections 161 and 183 B.N.S.S. as critical evidence, even in POCSO cases
- Where the victim admits to consensual conduct, the prosecution’s burden to prove coercion or exploitation becomes heavier
- Courts may grant bail even in serious offences if the evidence is internally contradictory
Prolonged Custody Without Trial Is Not Permissible
- Pre-trial detention exceeding six months in cases with weak evidence triggers a duty to reconsider bail
- Courts must assess the likelihood and duration of trial before denying bail
- The principle from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar applies even in POCSO cases when the facts do not justify automatic detention
Bail Conditions Must Be Specific and Enforceable
- Courts are now expected to impose clear, tailored conditions to prevent witness tampering
- Conditions must be framed to protect the integrity of the trial, not merely as boilerplate
- Failure to comply with bail conditions may lead to cancellation, but conditions must be reasonable and proportionate
