Absence of inducement and force in relationship between consenting adults warrants bail under POCSO and BNS.

The applicant, a 21-year-old labourer, was arrested on March 4, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 129/2026 at Police Station Belbag, District Jabalpur.

He was charged with repeated sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault under Section 64(2)(n) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 5(L) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, involving a victim aged 18 years.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS did not allege force or inducement.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

2. Whether there exists a likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence if released on bail.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 439 CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

Section 64(2)(n) of the BNS and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which define the gravity of the offences.

The court emphasized the procedural importance of Section 183 of the BNSS (statement of the victim) and the requirement of ensuring trial presence under Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 CrPC).

The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged kidnapping and sexual assault, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS lacked elements of inducement, compulsion, or force, suggesting a romantic relationship.

Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar noted that the applicant is a young labourer with no criminal antecedents and deep family roots, which mitigates the risk of him fleeing or recidivism.

The court reasoned that since the final report had been filed and the trial was unlikely to commence in the near future, continued incarceration would cause undue hardship.

The court concluded that the veracity of the victim’s age and the prosecution’s claims are matters for the trial, and there was no compelling reason to deny bail at this stage.

The holding is contingent upon certain conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The trial court was further directed to ensure compliance with witness examination protocols under Section 346 of the BNSS.