Consent of Minor Victim Immaterial for Bail Where Element of Inducement or Force is Prima Facie Absent

The applicant, Suraj (aged 18), was arrested on February 10, 2026, for allegedly kidnapping and committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim (aged 16).

The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, stated she had a romantic liking for the applicant and had voluntarily left her home to live with him in a rented room in Ujjain for a month.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, contending that the relationship was consensual and he was falsely implicated by the victim’s family.

The State opposed the bail citing the gravity of the offence, though it admitted the applicant had no prior criminal record.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail considering the nature of the allegations, the statement of the victim, and his lack of criminal antecedents.

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

It also considered the penal provisions under Sections 137(2) (Kidnapping), 87 (Punishment for sexual assault), and 64(2)(m) (Punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault).

The court relied on the principle that bail may be granted where the element of enticement or force is prima facie missing and where the accused is not a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence.

The court observed that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS did not allege any misdeed, inducement, or compulsion by the applicant; rather, it suggested a consensual romantic relationship between adolescents.

The court noted that the investigation was nearly complete, and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Highlighting the applicant's young age (18 years), his socio-economic status as a laborer, and the absence of any criminal history, the court reasoned that there was no likelihood of recidivism or the applicant fleeing from justice.

The court emphasized that the veracity of the prosecution's claims and the exact age of the victim are matters to be determined during the trial, and continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to the young applicant.

The court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the merits of the case and the applicant's background warranted his release.

The release is subject to strict conditions, including regular attendance at court hearings, refraining from committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.