Bail Granted in Alleged Minor Kidnapping Where Prima Facie Evidence Suggests Consensual Romantic Relationship

The applicant, a 19-year-old labourer, was arrested on March 22, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 97/2026 for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 17-year and 7-month-old minor.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 87, and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant contended that it was a consensual romantic relationship where the couple performed marriage in a temple after the victim's family planned her marriage elsewhere.

The victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS supported the applicant's claim of mutual liking and voluntary departure.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the relationship and the statements of the victim.

2. Whether there exists a likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence given his socio-economic status and lack of criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping), 87 (Kidnapping/Abduction with intent to secretly confine), and 64(2)(m) (Punishment for rape) of the BNS, 2023, alongside Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act.

Procedural mandate of Section 183 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the victim's statement.

Provision for continuous trial under Section 346 of the BNSS.

The court observed that while the victim was technically a minor, the elements of force, enticement, or compulsion were prima facie missing from her Section 183 BNSS statement, which indicated a consensual relationship and a self-orchestrated marriage.

The court noted that the applicant, being a young labourer with no criminal history, exhibited no "likelihood of recidivism" or capacity to influence witnesses or flee the process of law.

The court reasoned that since the investigation was nearly complete and the trial would be prolonged, continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to the young applicant.

It concluded that the "veracity of prosecution" and the "exact age of the victim" are matters for trial and should not preclude bail at this stage.

The court held that there were no compelling reasons for continued detention given the socio-economic status of the applicant and the ex-facie absence of force.

The bail is subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at hearings, prohibition of further criminal activity, and non-interference with prosecution witnesses.