Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case, Citing Victim’s Testimony That They Lived Together For 4–5 Years And Slow Trial

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2), 5(j)(ii) and 5(h)(6) of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that from 2021 to November 2025 the applicant had sexual relations with the victim on a promise of marriage; after she became pregnant, he allegedly administered medicines without her consent, causing the termination of the pregnancy, and later refused to marry her.

The applicant argued that their relationship was consensual, that the victim had testified to their cohabitation and relationship, and that the charge-sheet had been filed. He had been in custody since 22 January 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and three of fourteen witnesses had been examined.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offences, and the victim objected to bail.

The application was made under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for consideration of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4(2), 5(j)(ii) and 5(h)(6) of the POCSO Act.

The order cites no precedent or further legal test; it records that the question of bail was assessed on the case circumstances, including the stage of the proceedings and likely time to conclude trial.

The Court considered that the victim had lodged the report after attaining majority and had testified that she and the applicant were in a relationship, lived together in a rented house for four to five years, and had physical relations.

It also took into account that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 22 January 2026, and that only three of fourteen witnesses had been examined, indicating that trial might take considerable time.

On those combined considerations, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found the case fit for bail.

It directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions against influencing persons acquainted with the facts, prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and failing to appear on each trial date.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial court must decide the case on its own merits.