Consent of Minor in Sexual Offences is Legally Immaterial Regardless of Alleged Relationship or Pregnancy.

The applicant, Rajesh Mandavi, sought first anticipatory bail after being booked under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, who is the brother-in-law (Jija) of the minor victim, engaged in a sexual relationship with her, resulting in a pregnancy that was subsequently terminated.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to an ongoing matrimonial dispute with his wife, who allegedly orchestrated the complaint through her younger sister.

It was further noted that the victim is a student of Class 9.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite the victim being a minor and the allegations of sexual assault and pregnancy.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

It further relied on the legal principle that in cases of sexual offences involving a minor, the consent of the victim is legally immaterial and does not mitigate the gravity of the offence.

The court also considered the nature of offences under Sections 64(2)(m) (rape by a relative/person in trust) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS, 2023.

The court evaluated the gravity of the offence and the specific allegations against the applicant.

While the applicant pleaded false implication due to a family feud, the court placed significant weight on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.

Although the victim deposed that there was a "love affair," the court reasoned that the victim’s status as a minor renders any purported consent legally irrelevant.

The court further observed that the medical evidence indicated the victim had become pregnant and underwent a termination, which underscored the seriousness of the allegations.

Consequently, the court found the custodial nature and the sensitivity of the crime involving a minor relative outweighed the applicant's arguments for pre-arrest liberty.

The anticipatory bail application was rejected.

The court granted the trial court liberty to proceed expeditiously and directed that a copy of the order be sent for compliance.