Consensual adolescent relationship and parental acceptance support regular bail in a POCSO case.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a third bail application relating to FIR No. 44/2026, registered under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The FIR followed a report that the complainant’s 16-year-old daughter had been missing since 5 January 2026. Police traced her on 13 May 2026, living with the petitioner in rented accommodation; he was arrested that day. The victim was found to be pregnant, and the petitioner’s assertion that they had married was unsupported by proof.

Charges had been framed, and the case was at the prosecution-evidence stage; the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was complete.

The victim’s counsel stated that the victim had married the petitioner, while her parents said they accepted the relationship; the State opposed bail, citing the risk of influence or intimidation of witnesses.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 13 May 2026, and his conduct in custody was reported as satisfactory.

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail, having regard to the circumstances of the relationship, the victim’s and her parents’ position, and the procedural stage of the case.

Whether the State’s concern about possible influence or intimidation of witnesses warranted continued detention, or could be addressed by bail conditions.

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The allegations were under Section 137(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act; the Court did not determine guilt or treat the victim’s consent as a defence to those offences.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, the Supreme Court discussed misuse of the POCSO Act in cases involving adolescent relationships and called for consideration of measures including a “Romeo-Juliet” clause; the judgment did not establish such a clause as an existing statutory exemption.

In Riyaz v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5918, the Delhi High Court considered the consensual nature of an adolescent relationship and the case’s procedural circumstances in deciding bail, without deciding the merits of the charges.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the POCSO charge and the State’s apprehension concerning witness influence, but considered the victim’s account of the relationship, her parents’ acceptance of it, and the complainant father’s stated wish not to pursue the matter further.

It also noted that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was complete, charges had been framed, and the case was at the prosecution-evidence stage.

Relying on the cited decisions as context for assessing adolescent-relationship cases at the bail stage, the Court concluded that continued incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose; it addressed the identified risks through conditions restricting contact or interference and requiring attendance and reporting.

Conditions included cooperating with any further investigation, providing and maintaining his address and mobile number, not threatening or inducing witnesses or tampering with evidence, appearing before the Trial Court when directed, and reporting to the local police station every Monday at 9:00 a.m.

The Court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding bail and would not affect the trial or express a view on the merits.