The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted anticipatory bail in a serious POCSO case, emphasizing that contradictions in the victim’s age and the absence of medical evidence cannot be ignored when assessing the necessity of pre-arrest detention. This ruling reinforces that bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 must be evaluated on the totality of circumstances, not merely the gravity of allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Bhuneshwar Rathore alias Rinku, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 56/2026 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. The case involves allegations under Sections 74, 115(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The prosecution alleges that on or about 09.02.2026, the applicant, accompanied by a co-accused, forcibly took the victim, a minor girl, on his motorcycle, threatened her with marriage, assaulted her physically, and left her injured on the roadside.
Key Facts
- The victim is alleged to have been 17 years old at the time of the incident, with her date of birth recorded in the FIR as 2009.
- The applicant submitted an Aadhaar card of the victim showing her date of birth as 26.06.2008, which would make her 17 years and 8 months old at the time of the incident, and a Class V certificate (Annexure A/4) corroborating the same date of birth.
- The applicant and the victim were known to each other, but the victim’s parents reportedly disapproved of their association.
- The victim filed a complaint on 10.02.2026.
- No Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) report has been produced to substantiate the alleged injuries to the victim’s face, neck, and knees.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
Procedural History
- 09.02.2026: Alleged incident occurred near Royal Beauty Parlor, Champa.
- 10.02.2026: Victim filed complaint with Police Station Champa.
- 11.02.2026: Crime No. 56/2026 registered.
- 23.04.2026: High Court issued notice to the victim’s father.
- 28.04.2026: Victim’s father appeared through DLSA Janjgir-Champa and objected to bail.
- 30.04.2026: Hearing concluded; order passed.
The Parties' Positions
Applicant’s Position: The applicant claims he is falsely implicated due to parental disapproval of his relationship with the victim. He argues that the victim is not a minor as per official documents, rendering the POCSO charge unsustainable. He further contends that the absence of an MLC report undermines the prosecution’s case and that prolonged incarceration before trial would cause irreparable harm.
Respondent’s Position: The State argues that the allegations under POCSO and BNS are grave, involving physical assault and coercion. It contends that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of BNSS corroborates the assault and that the age discrepancy is a matter for trial, not bail. It further argues that the lack of an MLC does not negate the allegations.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent arrest in Crime No. 56/2026, subject to conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving allegations under the POCSO Act and BNS, where the victim’s age is in dispute, no medical evidence of injury exists, and the parties are known to each other.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi to argue that anticipatory bail should not be denied solely on the basis of the gravity of the offence. He emphasized that the victim’s age, as per Aadhaar and school records, places her beyond the purview of the POCSO Act. He further submitted that the absence of an MLC report weakens the prosecution’s case and that the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and lack of criminal antecedents warrant bail.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel contended that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of BNSS is sufficient to establish a prima facie case. It argued that age determination must be conclusively established by a court, not through documents submitted at the bail stage. It further submitted that the nature of the alleged assault - forcible confinement, physical violence, and threats - demands strict scrutiny and that granting bail could prejudice the investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the factual contradictions and evidentiary gaps. It noted that while the allegations under POCSO and BNS are serious, the applicant’s claim regarding the victim’s age, supported by two official documents - Aadhaar and Class V certificate - raises a legitimate doubt about the applicability of the POCSO Act. The Court observed that the prosecution has not produced an MLC report despite the alleged injuries to the face, neck, and knees, which is a significant lacuna in the evidentiary chain.
"The absence of any medical corroboration for the alleged physical injuries, coupled with the contradictory age records, creates a reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the prosecution’s version at this preliminary stage."
The Court further acknowledged that the victim and applicant were known to each other, and the complaint followed parental disapproval, suggesting a possible motive for fabrication. It held that while the allegations cannot be dismissed outright, the threshold for denying anticipatory bail is not met when the prosecution’s case is undermined by material inconsistencies and lack of medical evidence.
The Court also considered the principle that anticipatory bail is not a right but a discretionary remedy, and that the applicant’s cooperation with the process, absence of criminal history, and willingness to comply with conditions weighed in his favor.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Bhuneshwar Rathore alias Rinku, directing that upon arrest, he shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety of like amount, subject to five conditions: (a) no intimidation of witnesses; (b) no interference with the trial; (c) appearance before the trial court on all dates; (d) submission of Aadhaar card and a coloured postcard-sized photo with Aadhaar number printed for verification; and (e) no commission of any similar offence in future. The Court directed compliance within 7 days of arrest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Discrepancies Can Undermine POCSO Prosecutions at Bail Stage
- Practitioners must now rigorously verify and submit official age documents (Aadhaar, school records, birth certificates) at the bail stage in POCSO cases.
- Courts may grant anticipatory bail if age documentation creates reasonable doubt, even if the final determination is reserved for trial.
- Prosecution must be prepared to explain why such documents were not considered during investigation.
Absence of MLC Report Weakens Prosecution’s Prima Facie Case
- In cases involving physical assault under POCSO or BNS, failure to obtain an MLC report may be fatal to the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
- Courts are increasingly treating the absence of medical evidence as a material factor in assessing the credibility of allegations.
- Defence counsel should routinely request production of MLC reports and highlight their absence in bail applications.
Known Relationships Do Not Preclude Bail in Sexual Offence Cases
- The fact that the accused and victim are known to each other does not automatically disqualify anticipatory bail.
- Courts are now more willing to examine the context of the relationship, including familial opposition, as a potential motive for false implication.
- This opens the door for nuanced bail arguments in cases involving consensual relationships later alleged as sexual offences.
