Bail is denied where a minor prosecutrix’s statement specifically implicates the accused in sexual assault.

The applicant filed a second application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3/4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He had been in custody since 20 March 2024, and his first bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn on 1 December 2025.

The prosecutrix’s grandmother initially lodged a missing-person report stating that the minor prosecutrix had gone missing while left unattended. The prosecutrix was recovered on 22 March 2024. In her statement, she stated that she had voluntarily gone to Civic Centre, where she met the applicant, who took her to his residence and allegedly had sexual intercourse with her.

The applicant denied the allegations, contending that he had been falsely implicated, that the prosecutrix had left her house voluntarily, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and that the investigation was substantially complete and witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the prosecutrix was a minor, her consent was legally immaterial, and her statement specifically implicated the applicant in the alleged sexual offence.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the serious offences alleged against him and his prolonged custody?

Whether the prosecutrix’s alleged voluntary departure from her home and the applicant’s assertions regarding delay and false implication were sufficient to outweigh the prima facie material contained in her statement?

Whether the seriousness of the alleged sexual offence against a minor and the prosecutrix’s specific allegation of sexual intercourse justified denial of bail at the pre-trial stage?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3/4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court proceeded on the principle that, at the stage of bail, the prosecution material is assessed prima facie and the evidentiary value of a prosecutrix’s statement should not be conclusively determined without trial.

It further applied the statutory principle that where the prosecutrix is a minor, her consent, even if alleged, is immaterial in relation to the offences under the POCSO Act.

The Court found that the prosecutrix’s statement specifically implicated the applicant and attributed the alleged act of sexual intercourse to him.

Although the applicant relied on her voluntary departure from home, alleged delay in lodging the FIR, completion of investigation, and custody, the Court held that these circumstances did not eliminate the prima facie material against him.

The fact that the prosecutrix may initially have left voluntarily did not, at the bail stage, exonerate the applicant from the allegation that he subsequently took her to his residence and committed sexual intercourse with her.

Given the serious nature of the offences, the prosecutrix’s minority, and the specific allegations against the applicant, the Court declined to undertake a conclusive evaluation of the statement or the merits of the defence at the bail stage.

Considering the gravity of the alleged offences, the prosecutrix’s status as a minor, and her statement specifically implicating the applicant, the second bail application was dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.