Madhya Pradesh High Court

Grant of bail in POCSO case involving romantic relationship and no objection from victim.

Prashant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: April 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

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 1

He 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 1

The prosecution alleged that the applicant enticed a minor in 2023 and subjected her to sexual assault on multiple occasions.

Source reference: para 7

The defense contended it was a romantic relationship between teenagers opposed by family members.

Source reference: para 4

Notably, the victim and her parents expressed "no objection" to the grant of bail.

Source reference: para 6
02

Issues

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, 7-9
03

Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the powers of the High Court regarding bail.

Source reference: para 1

Evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (formerly Section 164 CrPC).

Source reference: para 7

Procedural mandates of Section 346 of the BNSS (formerly Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

Source reference: para 10
04

Reasoning

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 7

The 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, 8

Furthermore, 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, 9
05

Holding

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 10
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

PrashantvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · April 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment