Bail is denied where a minor victim’s testimony prima facie supports repeated sexual assault and consequent pregnancy.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 311/2025 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(d) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, aged approximately 16 years and 10 months, went missing on 14 May 2025 and was subsequently found to have been enticed by the applicant on the pretext of marriage and taken to his village, where she remained with him for approximately six months.

It was further alleged that the applicant repeatedly established physical relations with her, resulting in pregnancy.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, charges were framed, and the victim and her parents were examined before the trial court, where they supported the prosecution case.

The applicant had remained in custody since 2 November 2025 and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged?

Whether the victim’s age, her deposition supporting the prosecution, and the evidence of repeated sexual relations justified rejection of bail at that stage of the trial?

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

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(d) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court proceeded on the principle that, at the bail stage, it must assess the seriousness of the allegations, the apparent strength of the prosecution material, the age of the victim, and the likelihood that the prosecution evidence supports the accusation; it does not conduct a final evaluation of guilt.

A victim below 18 years of age is legally a child for purposes of the POCSO Act, and the victim’s consent or alleged voluntary association does not, at the bail stage, displace the prima facie effect of the prosecution evidence.

The Court found that the victim was approximately 16 years and 10 months old at the relevant time and, therefore, below 18 years of age.

Her testimony stated that the applicant had enticed her, taken her to his village, kept her there for about six months, and repeatedly established physical relations with her, resulting in pregnancy.

The Court treated this deposition as prima facie corroborating the material allegations.

Since the victim and her parents had already been examined and had supported the prosecution case, the defence plea that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant due to a love affair did not warrant bail at that stage.

Having regard to the victim’s minority, the gravity of the alleged sexual offences, the allegations of repeated sexual relations, and the supporting trial evidence, the Court concluded that the applicant did not deserve release on bail.

The first bail application filed by Manoj Sahu was accordingly rejected in relation to Crime No. 311/2025 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, for the offences under the BNS and POCSO Act.

The Registry was directed to transmit a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court for information and compliance.