In POCSO Pregnancy Case, Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail After Minor Victim Consents And Does Not Support Prosecution

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Section 64(2)(h) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant sexually exploited the minor victim, who consequently became pregnant.

The applicant submitted that the victim was 17 years and 3 months old at the time, that she and her father had been examined at trial and had not supported the prosecution, that the victim consented to bail, and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed.

The State opposed bail, arguing that the victim’s consent was irrelevant because she was a minor and that the allegations were serious.

The victim and her father appeared before the Court by video conference, and the victim consented to bail.

The Court considered the application under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides the procedural basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were Section 64(2)(h) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The order cites no precedent or elaborated statutory test; it assesses the bail application by reference to the circumstances identified by the Court, including completion of the investigation, the applicant’s custody, and the victim’s position and testimony.

The Court considered that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, that the applicant had been in custody since 24 May 2026, and that the victim had consented to bail and had not supported the prosecution before the trial court.

Although the State argued that the victim’s consent was immaterial because she was a minor, the Court treated her consent as one circumstance in the bail assessment; it did not determine the merits of the allegations or the legal effect of consent on the charged offences.

On the stated circumstances, the Court found that a case for regular bail had been made out.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats, or promises to persons acquainted with the case; requiring conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial; and requiring attendance on every date fixed by the trial court until conclusion of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding bail and that the trial court must decide the case on its own merits.