Bail granted where victim’s statement negates inducement and indicates a consensual romantic relationship under POCSO.

The applicant, a 26-year-old labourer, sought bail following his arrest on March 7, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 41/2026 registered at Police Station Chappiheda

He was charged with kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault of a minor, allegedly aged 16 years and 8 months

The applicant contended that the matter was a result of a romantic relationship and a subsequent marriage conducted against the wishes of the victim's parents

Procedurally, the investigation had concluded, and a final report was submitted

The applicant highlighted discrepancies in the victim’s age, noting that her parents had previously stated she was 20 years old during a missing person enquiry

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the victim’s statements denying inducement or force.

2. Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence if released during the trial.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail

Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act

The procedural requirements for recording victim statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS

The general principles of bail regarding the socio-economic status of the accused and the absence of criminal antecedents

The court analyzed the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS and found that she did not support the prosecution's allegations of kidnapping or assault; instead, she admitted to leaving her home voluntarily to marry the applicant

The court noted that the essential elements of inducement, enticement, or compulsion were prima-facie missing from the evidence

Regarding the victim's age, the court observed that conflicting documents and parental statements created a triable issue that would only be resolved during the final trial

Furthermore, since the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the court determined there was no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration, as there was no evidence of the applicant being a flight risk or a threat to witnesses

The Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on bail

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular court attendance and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses