Bail granted where minor prosecutrix’s statement reveals voluntary accompaniment and a consensual relationship.

The applicant was arrested on February 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 46/2026 at Police Station Bahodapur, Gwalior.

He was charged under Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping) and 64(1) (Punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant kidnapped and raped the prosecutrix, who was aged 15 years and 8 months at the time of the incident.

The applicant moved his first bail application before the High Court, contending that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him, they were in a consensual relationship, and her own investigative statements confirmed she went with him out of mutual affection.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest.

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 allegations of rape and kidnapping involving a minor.

2. Whether the consensual nature of the relationship and the duration of pre-trial detention justify the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Substantively, the case involved Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The court relied on the established judicial principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.

It further considered the relevance of the prosecutrix’s statement regarding consent and voluntary accompaniment, even in matters involving the POCSO Act, for the limited purpose of determining bail.

The court examined the case diary and the statements recorded during the investigation. It noted the applicant’s argument that the prosecutrix’s statement suggested she was a consenting party who had voluntarily entered the relationship.

While the prosecution invoked POCSO provisions due to the age of the prosecutrix, the court observed that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.

The court balanced the gravity of the offenses against the fact that the applicant is a permanent resident of Gwalior with no flight risk.

It reasoned that since the trial would be prolonged, continued incarceration served no useful purpose, especially as the prosecutrix’s own statements indicated a lack of force or coercion.

Consequently, the court found the facts and circumstances favorable for extending the benefit of bail.

The court ordered the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The holding was subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must cooperate with the trial, must not threaten witnesses, must not commit further offenses during the trial period, and must not leave India without prior permission.

Failure to comply with these conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail order.