The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that parental involvement in sexual offences against minors cannot be inferred solely from passive non-objection to a relationship. In granting anticipatory bail to the accused’s parents, the Court emphasized the necessity of specific overt acts to establish liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Crime No. 19 of 2026, registered at Hiramandalam Police Station, Srikakulam District, alleges that Accused No. 1, Kotnala Chandra Sekhar alias Mahesh, engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with a minor female by making a false promise to marry her after she attained majority. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the parents of Accused No. 1, are alleged to have encouraged and supported the commission of the offence by opposing the victim’s marriage to their son and allegedly threatening her.
Key Facts
- The complainant lodged the FIR on 25.02.2026 at approximately 20:00 hours
- Accused No. 1 is a Constable/GD in the CRPF, currently posted in Assam
- Accused No. 2 (father) and Accused No. 3 (mother) are permanent residents of Singidi Village, Bhamini Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District
- The victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents
- No physical evidence or medical reports are referenced in the FIR
- No witness statements or documentary proof of threats or coercion by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are cited
- The FIR contains only general allegations that the parents "did not agree to the marriage" and "allegedly threatened" the victim
Procedural History
- 25.02.2026: FIR registered at Hiramandalam Police Station under Sections 60 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 11 read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- 18.03.2026: Criminal Petition No. 1830/2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Sections 437, 438, 439, 482 of CrPC and 528 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail
- 24.02.2026: Hearing conducted before Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
- 24.03.2026: Order passed by the High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3:
- Are elderly parents with no involvement in the alleged acts
- Have no criminal record
- Are willing to cooperate with the investigation
- Are permanent residents of a rural village with no means to flee
- Seek to be relieved of the stigma and threat of arrest
Respondent/State:
- Argues that the investigation is ongoing
- Claims that granting bail may lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- Asserts that the parents’ opposition to the marriage and alleged threats constitute abetment
Relief Sought
- Anticipatory bail for Accused Nos. 2 and 3
- Dismissal of the petition as against Accused No. 1, as not pressed
- Impleadment of the complainant as a de facto respondent (withdrawn during hearing)
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether mere non-acceptance of a marriage proposal and general allegations of threat, without any specific overt act or participation in the sexual offence, are sufficient to attract criminal liability under Sections 60 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner/Accused Nos. 2 and 3
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parents have no role in the alleged sexual acts. The FIR contains no specific allegations of physical involvement, conspiracy, or active encouragement. Mere disapproval of a relationship, even if expressed in strong terms, does not constitute abetment under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioners are elderly, non-mobile, and have no incentive to tamper with evidence. They are willing to surrender and cooperate fully with the investigation.
For the Respondent/State
The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the parents’ alleged threats and opposition to the marriage created an environment conducive to the commission of the offence. The prosecution argued that under Section 11 of the POCSO Act, anyone who aids, abets, or encourages the commission of an offence is equally liable. The investigation is still in progress, and granting anticipatory bail may jeopardize witness credibility and evidence collection.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the FIR and found that the allegations against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were vague and conclusory. The Court noted that Section 11 of the POCSO Act requires active participation or encouragement, not passive disapproval. Similarly, Section 107 of the BNS defines abetment as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid - none of which are articulated with specificity against the parents.
"Except a general allegation that they did not agree to the marriage of Accused No.1 with the victim and allegedly threatened her, there are no specific overt acts attributed to them so as to prima facie attract the offences alleged."
The Court emphasized that the burden of establishing a prima facie case lies with the prosecution. In the absence of any concrete evidence of threats, coercion, or active participation, the allegations against the parents were insufficient to justify the denial of anticipatory bail. The Court also observed that the petitioners are permanent residents with deep roots in the community, making flight unlikely. The Court further noted that the petitioner No. 1, the primary accused, was not seeking bail and the petition against him was withdrawn.
The Court distinguished this case from those where parents actively facilitated or concealed offences, holding that mere familial association or disapproval of a relationship cannot be equated with criminal intent or participation.
The Verdict
The petition was partly allowed. Anticipatory bail was granted to Accused Nos. 2 and 3, subject to the following conditions: they shall surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks of receiving a copy of this order; execute a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties of the same amount; make themselves available for investigation as required; not threaten or influence any prosecution witness; and appear weekly before the Station House Officer every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge sheet. The petition against Accused No. 1 was dismissed as not pressed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parental Non-Approval Is Not Abetment
- Practitioners must now demonstrate specific, overt acts of encouragement or conspiracy to invoke liability under Section 11 of the POCSO Act or Section 107 of the BNS against family members
- General allegations of "opposing marriage" or "threatening the victim" without corroboration will not suffice for arrest or charge
- Courts will require concrete evidence of active participation, not passive disapproval
Early Bail in POCSO Cases Where No Overt Acts Are Alleged
- Accused persons with minimal or indirect involvement may seek anticipatory bail at the earliest stage
- Courts are likely to grant bail where the accused are elderly, non-mobile, and have no prior criminal record
- Conditions such as weekly reporting and non-interference with witnesses are standard and enforceable
- Prosecutors must now articulate precise links between the accused and the offence - vague allegations will not sustain arrest
