Consensual romantic relationship and absence of force justify bail in POCSO and kidnapping cases.

The applicant, Arun Jhodiya, a 21-year-old laborer, was arrested on March 10, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 50/2026 registered at Police Station Shivgarh.

He was charged with kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault of a minor (aged 17 years and 7 months) under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5l and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The applicant contended that the case involved a romantic relationship where the victim voluntarily left her home to avoid an arranged marriage, while the State opposed the bail citing the gravity of the offenses.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the victim's statement suggesting a consensual relationship?

2. Whether the socio-economic status of the applicant and the lack of criminal antecedents mitigate the need for continued incarceration?

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of bail by the High Court.

It considered the penal provisions for kidnapping and rape under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The Court also evaluated the procedural weight of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

The Court applied established judicial principles regarding bail, including the assessment of flight risk, potential for witness tampering, and the socio-economic background of the accused.

The Court analyzed the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, noting that she expressed a desire to marry the applicant and had voluntarily accompanied him to various locations.

It observed that the elements of inducement or force appeared prima facie missing from the victim's account.

The Court noted that the final report had already been filed and the applicant had no criminal history.

Reasoning that the applicant is a young laborer with deep family roots and property, the Court found no likelihood of him fleeing justice or influencing witnesses.

It concluded that continued incarceration would cause undue hardship, as the veracity of the victim’s age and the prosecution’s claims are matters to be determined at trial.

The holding was conditioned upon the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount.

The Court imposed several mandatory conditions, including regular attendance at trial hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to the Trial Court's power to cancel bail in the event of a breach of conditions.