The Bombay High Court's recent order in Suraj Vijaysingh Jarwal v. State of Maharashtra underscores a critical judicial approach to anticipatory bail in cases involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court granted interim protection to the applicant, highlighting the absence of investigative evidence confirming the victim's minority and the possibility of a consensual relationship, thereby setting a precedent for procedural rigor in such sensitive matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Suraj Vijaysingh Jarwal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0221 of 2026 registered at Mukundwadi Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The First Information Report (FIR) alleged offences under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, stemming from an alleged relationship with a minor victim.
Key Facts
- The FIR suggested the possibility of a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim.
- The Sessions Court's order rejecting pre-arrest bail made no mention of any investigation confirming the victim's minority at the time of the incident.
- The victim was alleged to be 16 years and 11 months old at the time of the incident.
- The prosecution opposed bail, citing threats allegedly issued by the applicant to the informant and her family to withdraw the complaint.
Procedural History
- 2026: Crime No. 0221 registered under Section 64, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 and 6, POCSO Act.
- Pre-29.06.2026: Sessions Court rejected the applicant's pre-arrest bail application.
- 29.06.2026: Applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1045 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing:
- The relationship was consensual.
- There was no evidence confirming the victim's minority.
- The applicant had no prior criminal history.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail could be granted under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita where:
- The FIR suggested a consensual relationship.
- There was no investigative evidence confirming the victim's minority at the time of the incident.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The FIR indicated a consensual relationship, which, if proven, could mitigate the severity of the offence.
- The Sessions Court's order lacked any reference to investigative findings confirming the victim's minority.
- The applicant had no criminal antecedents, and his liberty deserved protection pending further investigation.
For the Respondent/State
- The victim was 16 years and 11 months old at the time of the incident, making her a minor under the POCSO Act.
- The applicant had allegedly threatened the informant and her family to withdraw the complaint, indicating a potential attempt to obstruct justice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a prima facie assessment of the FIR and the Sessions Court's order. It observed:
- The FIR supported the possibility of a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim.
- The Sessions Court's order did not reference any investigative evidence confirming the victim's minority at the relevant time.
- The absence of such evidence weakened the prosecution's case for denying bail solely on the gravity of the alleged offence.
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail cannot be denied automatically based on the nature of the offence, especially when critical factual determinations - such as the victim's age - remain unresolved. It held that the applicant's liberty deserved protection until the prosecution could substantiate its claims.
"Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report supports the contention of the learned Counsel of the applicant with regard to the possibility of consensual relationship between victim and the applicant accused. Apart from this, there is no reference of carrying out any investigation indicating the victim girl to be minor at the relevant time in the order passed by the Sessions Court."
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with the following conditions:
- The applicant shall be released on bail upon arrest, on furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety in the like amount.
- The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer.
- The applicant shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
- The applicant shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner.
- The applicant shall cooperate with the investigating agency for further investigation.
- Notice issued to the respondents, returnable on 22.07.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Rigor in POCSO Cases
- Courts must insist on investigative evidence confirming the victim's minority before denying anticipatory bail solely on the gravity of the offence.
- The absence of such evidence can tilt the balance in favor of granting bail, especially when the FIR suggests a consensual relationship.
Consensual Relationship as a Defence
- Where the FIR or investigation indicates a consensual relationship, practitioners should argue that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the victim's minority.
- The Sessions Court's failure to reference investigative findings on the victim's age can be a ground for challenging bail rejections.
Conditions for Bail Under POCSO
- Anticipatory bail under POCSO Act can be granted with strict conditions, such as:
- Non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
- Cooperation with the investigating agency.
- Attendance at the police station as required.
- These conditions ensure that the applicant's liberty does not prejudice the investigation.
