Facts
The applicant, a 19-year-old labourer, sought bail following his arrest on April 3, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 238/2026.
Source reference: para 1He was charged with penetrative sexual assault of a minor under Sections 96, 64(2) M, and 296 (b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act.
Source reference: para 1The prosecution alleged that the applicant enticed a minor in 2023 and subjected her to sexual assault on multiple occasions.
Source reference: para 7The defense contended it was a romantic relationship between teenagers opposed by family members.
Source reference: para 4Notably, the victim and her parents expressed "no objection" to the grant of bail.
Source reference: para 6Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the relationship and the lack of objection from the victim.
Source reference: para 1, 7-9Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the powers of the High Court regarding bail.
Source reference: para 1Evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (formerly Section 164 CrPC).
Source reference: para 7Procedural mandates of Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.
Source reference: para 10Reasoning
The Court observed that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS did not specifically allege inducement, enticement, compulsion, or force, lending prima-facie merit to the applicant's claim of a consensual romantic relationship.
Source reference: para 7The Court noted the applicant's young age (19 years), his socio-economic status as a labourer, and his lack of criminal antecedents, which mitigated risks of recidivism or fleeing from justice.
Source reference: para 4, 8Furthermore, because the investigation was nearing completion and the victim’s family expressed no objection, the Court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration, especially as the trial would take significant time to conclude.
Source reference: para 4, 9Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative and allowed the bail application.
The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including mandatory appearance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
Source reference: para 10Original Court PDF
PrashantvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in