Alleged blackmail, monetary transfers, and FIR delay do not justify anticipatory bail in serious POCSO cases.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 186/2026 registered at Police Station Chhaal, District Raigarh, for offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had committed rape against a minor girl during the period from 25 December 2022 to 21 January 2026, and that the complaint was lodged on 8 August 2026.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that he and the victim were closely related, that monetary disputes had arisen between the parties, and that he had been blackmailed and falsely implicated.

The State opposed the application, and the victim appeared before the Court with her maternal grandmother to oppose the grant of anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS despite the allegations of aggravated rape against a minor under Section 64(2)(m) BNS and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act?

Whether the alleged monetary transactions, blackmail/extortion allegations, and delay in registration of the FIR established, at the anticipatory-bail stage, that the prosecution case was false or that the applicant had been falsely implicated?

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

It considered the substantive allegations under Section 64(2)(m) BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, involving serious sexual offences against a minor and carrying severe statutory consequences.

The Court applied the principle that, at the stage of anticipatory bail, disputed questions concerning the purpose and genuineness of financial transactions, allegations of blackmail or extortion, the credibility of rival versions, and the evidentiary effect of delay ordinarily require investigation and cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of defence documents alone.

The Court held that the applicant’s reliance on bank transactions totalling ₹35,00,000 did not, by itself, prove that the sexual-offence case was false.

The purpose and circumstances of the transfers, the relationship between the parties, and the allegations of blackmail and extortion required investigation and appreciation of evidence.

The fact that the applicant himself had approached the police alleging blackmail made the transactions a relevant investigative circumstance, rather than conclusive proof of false implication.

Similarly, the delay in lodging the FIR and the applicant’s defence could be assessed at an appropriate stage on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and trial.

Given the serious allegations, the minor age of the victim, the prolonged period of alleged offences, and the stringent provisions invoked under the BNS and POCSO Act, the Court declined to undertake a detailed assessment of the rival versions at the anticipatory-bail stage.

It held that the alleged monetary transactions, blackmail allegations, and delay in registration of the FIR did not justify anticipatory bail at that stage, particularly in view of the serious sexual-offence allegations involving a minor.

Accordingly, the anticipatory-bail application of Pushpendra Kumar Goel in Crime No. 186/2026 was rejected.