An alleged consensual relationship with a minor cannot justify bail amid corroborated POCSO evidence.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 303/2025 registered at Police Station AJK, Korba, for offences under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution alleged that the minor victim went missing on 4 May 2025 and returned on 10 May 2025, after which it was discovered that the applicant had established physical relations with her and that she had become pregnant.

The charge-sheet was filed on 17 September 2025, charges were framed, and the victim and other material prosecution witnesses had been examined before the trial court.

The applicant relied on the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, the absence of injuries, uncertainty regarding the victim’s age, completion of investigation, and the advanced stage of trial.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the victim’s testimony, the medical evidence of pregnancy, and the DNA report identifying the applicant as the biological father of the child born to the victim.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the seriousness of the alleged offences and the evidence collected during investigation and trial.

Whether the alleged love affair, voluntary accompaniment, or consent of the victim could justify grant of bail when the prosecution alleged that she was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.

Whether the victim’s testimony, medical evidence, and DNA report disclosed sufficient prima facie material against the applicant to decline bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court proceeded on the principle that an alleged consensual or romantic relationship cannot, at the bail stage, be considered in isolation where the victim was below 18 years of age, and that the court must assess the prima facie material, the nature and gravity of the offence, the victim’s testimony, and corroborative medical and scientific evidence.

The Court found that the victim had categorically testified that the applicant expressed his love, promised to marry her, and thereafter forcibly established physical relations with her on several occasions.

Her testimony regarding the relationship and pregnancy was materially corroborated by the medical evidence, while the DNA report established that the applicant was the biological father of the child born to her.

Accordingly, the applicant’s reliance on an alleged love affair, voluntary accompaniment, or consent was not sufficient for bail, particularly because the victim was alleged to be below 18 years of age.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed and the victim and other witnesses had been examined, the Court considered the seriousness of the offences, the victim’s testimony, the pregnancy-related medical evidence, and the DNA report to constitute sufficient prima facie material against the applicant.

The first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was rejected in connection with Crime No. 303/2025.

The Registry was directed to send a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information and compliance.