Bail granted under POCSO where victim's statement lacks elements of force, inducement, or compulsion.

The applicant, aged 20, sought his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on January 2, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 544/2025 for allegedly kidnapping and committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim (aged 17 years and 1 month) under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

In her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim stated she voluntarily accompanied the applicant to Ahmedabad, where they lived in a rented room and worked as laborers before being intercepted by the police.

The final report has been filed, and the applicant has no prior criminal record.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the victim’s statement and the absence of criminal antecedents.

2. Whether there exists a prima facie case of inducement, force, or compulsion to justify continued pretrial incarceration under the BNS and POCSO Act.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It considered the substantive offenses under Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping), 64(2)(m) (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault), and 87 (Kidnapping with intent to secretly confine) of the BNS, 2023, alongside Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court relied on the evidentiary value of the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The Court adhered to the principle that bail is a matter of judicial discretion, influenced by the applicant's socio-economic status, the absence of criminal recidivism, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence.

The Court observed that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS lacked elements of inducement, enticement, or force, suggesting a consensual romantic relationship between youngsters.

Justice Kalgaonkar noted that the veracity of the prosecution's claims regarding the victim's age and the alleged assault are matters for trial.

Given that the applicant is a 20-year-old laborer with no criminal history and strong family roots, the Court found no compelling reason to believe he would flee from justice or influence witnesses.

The Court highlighted that jail incarceration was causing undue hardship to the young applicant and that the "veracity of prosecution... will be determined after evidence in the trial".

The holding was based on the prima facie merit of the defense's contentions and the absence of any likelihood of tampering with evidence.

The bail is subject to five specific conditions, including regular attendance at trial hearings and a prohibition against committing similar offenses or contacting witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.