Bail granted in POCSO case where relationship appeared consensual and investigation was complete.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 88/2026 registered at Police Station Gariyaband for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 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 victim’s grandmother reported that the victim had gone missing during the night of 7 April 2026.

The victim was recovered on 19 April 2026, and in her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), alleged that the applicant had taken her on the pretext of marriage and sexually assaulted her repeatedly.

The charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

The applicant contended that the victim had voluntarily accompanied him, that the relationship was consensual, and that the victim had not supported the prosecution case.

The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement that she had eloped voluntarily but had physical relations with the applicant on the promise of marriage; the State also emphasised the seriousness of the offences.

The applicant had remained in custody since 19 April 2026.

Whether the applicant, accused of offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the apparent consensual nature of the relationship justified release on bail despite the gravity of the alleged offences.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which confers jurisdiction to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

The alleged offences were governed by Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the apparent circumstances of the relationship, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of incarceration.

Bail was granted subject to conditions regulating the applicant’s attendance, conduct during trial, and cooperation with the proceedings.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the victim was a minor.

However, it noted that the victim had stated that she voluntarily eloped with the applicant, remained with him for approximately 18 days, knew him for about two years, and intended to marry him.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court treated the relationship as appearing consensual in nature for the limited purpose of deciding bail.

Since the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since 19 April 2026, the Court found that continued detention was not necessary at that stage and that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.

The applicant, Durgesh Nagesh, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any unauthorised absence or non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.