Section 483 BNSS | Consensual Relationship with Near-Majority Victim Justifies Bail Under POCSO Act : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 21-year-old accused charged under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sections 64, 96, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), despite the victim being a minor. The judgment underscores that bail may be granted in POCSO cases where the accused and victim were in a consensual relationship, no force was alleged, and the chargesheet has been filed. This ruling aligns with precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing mitigating circumstances in bail jurisprudence.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Umesh H.Y., aged 21, was arrested on 13.09.2025 in connection with Crime No. 141/2025 registered by the P.D. Halli Police Station. The allegations stem from an incident involving a 17-year-old victim, with whom the petitioner had an acquaintance and a relationship. The complaint, lodged on 12.09.2025, alleges that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim under the promise of marriage and issued life threats to prevent disclosure.

Key Facts

• The victim and petitioner were acquainted and had been in a relationship for some time.
• The victim’s mother had previously warned the petitioner about the relationship.
• Two weeks prior to the complaint, the petitioner allegedly took the victim to his residential house on his motorbike, committed rape, and threatened her against disclosure.
• The victim’s parents confronted the petitioner’s father, who allegedly threatened them, leading to the lodging of the complaint.
• The chargesheet was filed under Sections 64, 96, 351(2), and 352 of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
• The victim’s statement under Section 161 CrPC (Section 183 BNSS) reiterated the complaint’s allegations.

Procedural History

• 13.09.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to custody.
• Crime No. 141/2025: Registered under the aforementioned sections.
• Special Case No. 1262/2025: Chargesheet filed before the Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Ballari.
• Criminal Petition No. 100653 of 2026: Filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), equivalent to Section 439 of the CrPC, seeking regular bail.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought enlargement on regular bail, arguing that the allegations, even if true, did not involve force and that the relationship was consensual. The petitioner also contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the chargesheet had been filed.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether bail could be granted under the POCSO Act in a case involving a minor victim where the accused and victim were in a consensual relationship, no force was alleged, and the chargesheet had already been filed.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• The chargesheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was not required.
• Even if the allegations were true, the act was consensual, and no force was used.
• The petitioner had no criminal antecedents and was willing to cooperate with the trial.
• The petitioner relied on precedents such as Vijay Chand Dubey v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) and Deshraj alias Musa v. State of Rajasthan (Supreme Court), which granted bail in similar POCSO cases.
• Stringent conditions could be imposed to ensure a fair trial.

For the Respondent/State

• The offence was heinous, and the petitioner was not entitled to bail.
• There was a likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or absconding.
• The victim was a minor, and the allegations involved serious offences under the POCSO Act.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the chargesheet materials and the precedents cited by the petitioner. It noted that the Bombay High Court in Vijay Chand Dubey v. State of Maharashtra had formulated specific considerations for granting bail in cases involving consensual relationships between minors and accused persons:

"12. The overall considerations while deciding such applications can be summed up as - When a boy and a minor girl are in love with each other and chose to live together without consent of their parents, then the following factors are to be considered: (i) What is the age of the prosecutrix, who is minor. (ii) Whether the act is violent or not. (iii) Whether there are antecedents or not. (iv) Whether the offender is capable of repeating the act or not. (v) Whether there is likelihood of threats or intimidation, if at all the boy is released. (vi) Whether any chance of tampering with the material witnesses when their statements are recorded. (vii) It is also to be taken into account in such cases that a boy in his early 20’s deserves to get employment and to plan, stabilize and secure his future."

The Court observed that in Vijay Chand Dubey, the accused was 19 years old, and the victim was 14 years old. The accused had been incarcerated for 5 years, 2 months, and 23 days, a duration significantly longer than the petitioner’s incarceration of approximately 9 months in this case. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Deshraj alias Musa v. State of Rajasthan, where bail was granted to an 18.5-year-old accused involved with a 16-year-old victim, despite the State’s objection regarding the accused’s criminal antecedents.

The Court noted that in the present case, the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and the chargesheet indicated a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim. While the complaint and the victim’s statement alleged forcible intercourse, the Court found mitigating circumstances that warranted the grant of bail, subject to stringent conditions.

The Verdict

The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for ₹2,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
2. The petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station once every month on the third Saturday between 10:00 am and 7:00 pm for the first three months, and thereafter as and when called.
3. The petitioner shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial, attend the Trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted, and not take unnecessary adjournments. Non-compliance would entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of the bail order.
4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
5. The petitioner shall not influence any witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner.
6. The petitioner shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number, and any changes thereto.
7. Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail revocation of the bail order.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Bail Under POCSO Act: Mitigating Circumstances Matter

• Courts may grant bail in POCSO cases where the accused and victim were in a consensual relationship, especially when no force is alleged and the chargesheet has been filed.
• The age of the accused and victim, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the duration of incarceration are critical factors in determining bail.
• Precedents such as Vijay Chand Dubey and Deshraj alias Musa establish that bail is not automatically denied in POCSO cases, even when the victim is a minor.

Stringent Conditions Are Non-Negotiable

• Bail orders in sensitive cases like POCSO will invariably include strict reporting conditions, restrictions on movement, and prohibitions on witness tampering.
• Practitioners must emphasize cooperation with trial proceedings and compliance with bail conditions to avoid revocation.

Consensual Relationships and Legal Nuances

• The judgment highlights the legal distinction between consensual acts and forcible offences, even when the victim is a minor.
• Defence counsel should scrutinize chargesheet materials to identify mitigating factors, such as the absence of violence or pre-existing relationships, to argue for bail.
• Prosecution must counter such arguments by demonstrating threats, intimidation, or likelihood of tampering to oppose bail effectively.