Bail Granted in POCSO Case After Victim and Mother Did Not Support Prosecution

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging that he abducted the victim, then aged about 17 years and 7 months, and sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 115(2) and 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The applicant had been shown as absconding, and a charge-sheet was filed against his mother.

The applicant submitted that he and the victim had married, had a child, and that the victim and her mother had not supported the prosecution case when examined at trial.

He had been in custody since 20 July 2026 and had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s age at the time of the alleged incident and the gravity of the allegations.

Appearing before the Court, the victim stated that she had married the applicant, had a child with him, and was living at his home of her own free will.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the allegations and the victim’s age at the time of the incident

Whether the victim’s and her mother’s evidence at trial, the victim’s statement before the Court, the applicant’s custody, and the other circumstances justified release on bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was the statutory basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 115(2) and 142 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the evidence and circumstances presented, the applicant’s period of custody and criminal antecedents, and the status of the proceedings.

The order cites no precedent or further legal test.

The Court acknowledged the State’s submission that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and that the allegations were serious.

In assessing the bail request, however, it considered that the victim and her mother had been examined and had not supported the prosecution case; the victim personally expressed consent to the applicant’s release and stated that she was living with him voluntarily; and the couple had married and had a child.

The Court also took account of the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 20 July 2026, and his lack of criminal antecedents.

On the combined circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits, it found the applicant suitable for release on bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducements, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring the applicant to attend every trial-court hearing until the trial concludes.