Consent of minor is immaterial in POCSO cases despite Section 164 statements alleging voluntary accompaniment.

The applicant, Arjun Balmik, filed his first bail application following his arrest on December 26, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 328/2025 at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind.

He was charged with kidnapping and raping a minor prosecutrix, aged approximately 15 years.

The applicant contended that the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. indicated she accompanied him voluntarily and that the rape allegation lacked medical corroboration.

Conversely, the State argued that despite her voluntary accompaniment, she explicitly alleged non-consensual physical relations, emphasizing the gravity of the offense.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the discretionary relief of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the allegations and the period of custody.

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

It further relied on the legal principle that prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of personal liberty.

The charges involved Sections 137(2) (kidnapping), 65(1) (punishment for rape), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

While the State emphasized the seriousness of the sexual assault charges and the victim's minor status, the Court noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

It observed that the applicant had been in custody since late 2025 and that keeping him detained indefinitely during the trial would contradict the principles of personal liberty.

The Court found that since the applicant is a permanent resident of Gwalior, the risks of him absconding or tampering with evidence could be mitigated by imposing strict conditions.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions, including cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and a prohibition against committing further offenses or leaving the country without permission.

The Court clarified that this order was passed without commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudice to the ongoing trial.