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

Yes, as per this judgment, bail may be granted if the victim’s statement indicates voluntary association, absence of coercion, and no exploitation, even if the victim is under 18. The Court emphasized that consent and age proximity are relevant factors in bail discretion.

Does Section 6 of the POCSO Act make bail impossible for accused persons?

No. While Section 6 creates a strict liability offence, this judgment clarifies that bail under Section 439 CrPC remains discretionary. The Court held that the nature of the relationship and absence of exploitation must be considered, not just the statutory offence.

Is the victim’s statement sufficient to influence bail decisions in POCSO cases?

Yes. When the victim’s testimony reveals voluntary association and no force or deception, it can significantly undermine the prosecution’s case for denying bail. Courts must treat such statements as material evidence, not merely as corroborative.

Section 439 CrPC bail in POCSO cases Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the mere existence of a consensual romantic relationship between a minor and an adult accused under the POCSO Act does not, by itself, justify denial of bail. In a significant departure from rigid interpretations, the Court emphasized the need to examine the factual matrix - including absence of coercion, age proximity, and mutual consent - when adjudicating bail applications in such cases.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Madesh N, aged 19 years, is accused in Crime No. 467/2025 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station, Bengaluru, under Sections 64, 351(2), 137(2), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arises from allegations that the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor girl, aged 16 years and 9 months, and subsequently traveled with her to Assam.

Key Facts

The victim girl, a student of II PUC, left her home on 24.11.2025 and did not return.
Her mother filed a complaint on 25.11.2025, leading to registration of an FIR against unknown persons under Section 137(2) of BNS.
The victim was traced in Assam along with the petitioner and brought back to Bengaluru.
The victim’s statement, recorded by the Magistrate on 20.01.2026, revealed that she and the petitioner were in a consensual romantic relationship.
She stated that on 15.11.2025, she had consensual sexual intercourse with the petitioner in his room at Chikkajala, Bengaluru.
On 24.11.2025, she voluntarily left home with the petitioner and traveled by flight to Assam, where they stayed for approximately one month in the petitioner’s brother’s house.
There is no allegation of force, threat, deception, or abduction in the victim’s statement.
The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2025 and has been in judicial custody since then.
The charge sheet has been filed, and the trial is pending before the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru.

Procedural History

24.11.2025: Victim leaves home; disappearance reported.
25.11.2025: FIR registered under Section 137(2) of BNS against unknown persons.
20.01.2026: Victim’s statement recorded by Magistrate.
25.12.2025: Petitioner arrested and produced before court; remanded to judicial custody.
16.03.2026: Bail application dismissed by Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.801/2026.
26.03.2026: Criminal Petition No. 5351/2026 filed before Karnataka High Court under Section 483 of BNS, 2023, read with Section 439 CrPC.
05.06.2026: Hearing before Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought regular bail in Spl.C.No.312/2026, arguing that the relationship was consensual, there was no evidence of exploitation, and his prolonged custody without trial violated his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether consensual sexual relations between a 19-year-old accused and a 16-year-old-9-month-old victim, where no coercion or deception is alleged, warrant denial of bail under the POCSO Act merely due to the age disparity.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim’s statement clearly indicated voluntary association and mutual consent. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and Sahil v. State of Punjab, where courts held that in cases of consensual relationships between adolescents, bail should not be denied as a matter of course. He emphasized that the POCSO Act is designed to protect children from exploitation, not to criminalize adolescent love. He further contended that the petitioner’s custody since 25.12.2025 - over four months - without trial, rendered continued detention unjust.

For the Respondent

The State, through the HCGP, argued that the POCSO Act is a stringent law meant to protect minors from sexual abuse, and any sexual act with a child below 18 years is per se an offence under Section 6. The prosecution contended that the age of the victim, even if consensual, triggers mandatory prosecution and that bail should be denied due to the gravity of the offence and potential for witness tampering.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the nature of the relationship as disclosed in the victim’s statement and noted the absence of any allegation of force, threat, or inducement. It observed that the victim was nearly 17 years old, close in age to the petitioner, and had voluntarily left her home to be with him. The Court distinguished this case from those involving grooming, exploitation, or abuse of authority.

"The fact that the victim was a minor does not, in itself, negate the possibility of a consensual relationship. The law must not be applied with a blunt instrument where the facts reveal mutual affection and absence of exploitation."

The Court further held that while Section 6 of the POCSO Act creates a strict liability offence, the grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC remains discretionary and must be guided by the principles of proportionality and personal liberty. It noted that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, was cooperating with the investigation, and had no history of absconding. The Court also rejected the notion that bail in POCSO cases should be routinely denied, citing State of Rajasthan v. Bal Krishna and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to affirm that fundamental rights are not suspended merely because a child is involved.

The Court emphasized that the burden on the prosecution to establish a prima facie case of exploitation had not been met, and the victim’s own account undermined the prosecution’s narrative of criminal intent.

The Verdict

The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the criminal petition and granted regular bail subject to the following conditions: (a) execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount; (b) regular appearance before the trial court unless exempted; (c) no contact or threat to prosecution witnesses; and (d) no departure from the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission. The petitioner shall remain on bail until the final disposal of Spl.C.No.312/2026.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must now argue that consensual relationships between minors close in age (e.g., 16 - 19 years) with no evidence of coercion or exploitation warrant bail consideration.
The victim’s own testimony, if consistent and voluntary, can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case for denial of bail.

Bail Denial Cannot Be Automatic Under POCSO

Courts must conduct a fact-specific inquiry into the nature of the relationship, not apply a blanket rule of denial.
Prolonged pre-trial custody without a prima facie case of exploitation may violate Article 21.

Prosecution Must Prove Exploitation, Not Just Age

Mere sexual intercourse with a minor under 18 is not sufficient to deny bail; the prosecution must establish elements of abuse, manipulation, or abuse of position.
Defense counsel should highlight the victim’s age, maturity, and voluntary conduct in bail applications.

Section 439 CrPC | Consensual Relationship with Near-Majority Victim Does Not Automatically Bar Bail : Karnataka HC