Alleged consensual relationship with a minor does not warrant bail in a serious POCSO prosecution.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 68(10) of 2025 under Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), on allegations that he had committed penetrative sexual assault upon a minor girl aged approximately 14 years.

Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet alleging a prima facie case, and the petitioner was directed to face trial before the Special Judge (POCSO), West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin, in Special POCSO Case No. 7 of 2026.

The trial had reached the stage of prosecution evidence, with the survivor and the examining doctor having been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the survivor had described it as a love relationship in her statements before the police and Magistrate.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the survivor was a minor, that she had been repeatedly sexually assaulted and became pregnant, and that the petitioner was already a married man with wife and children.

The complainant, through Legal Aid Counsel, stated that she had no objection to the grant of bail.

The Court noted that the relationship resulted in pregnancy and the birth of a child on 28 October 2025.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, and Sections 5(j)(ii)(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, concerning aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon a child and the prescribed punishment.

The Court proceeded on the principle that, at the bail stage, it should not conduct a detailed evaluation of the merits or make findings that may prejudice the pending trial; however, it must consider the seriousness and nature of the accusation, the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the accused, and the stage of the proceedings.

The alleged consent or participation of a minor does not, by itself, neutralize the statutory character of an offence under the POCSO Act.

The Court acknowledged that the survivor had referred to the relationship as a love relationship and that the petitioner had been in custody for a considerable period.

Nevertheless, the alleged relationship involved a minor and resulted in pregnancy and the birth of a child, while the petitioner had allegedly concealed that he was already married.

The Court considered this conduct relevant to the petitioner’s character and as a factor weighing against bail.

Although the trial was pending and two prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the Court declined to assess the evidentiary merits in detail.

Given the seriousness of the alleged POCSO offence and the petitioner’s conduct, the Court held that the circumstances did not justify release on bail at that stage.

The Court clarified that the trial court must proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations in the bail order.

The petitioner was given liberty to approach the High Court again at a later stage if the trial was not completed in the near future.

The petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.