Karnataka HC Denies Bail to Man Accused of Taking 15-Year-Old From Hospital, Says Her Consent Is Immaterial Under POCSO

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Sections 65(1), 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution alleged that on 31 January 2026 the petitioner took the complainant’s 15-year-old daughter from a hospital and sexually assaulted her repeatedly; the victim’s police statement referred to travel to Bengaluru, while her statement before the Magistrate referred to Pune.

The prosecution relied on school and medical records indicating the victim’s date of birth as 1 June 2011.

The petitioner asserted that the victim went with him voluntarily and relied on delay and inconsistencies in her statements.

The charge sheet had been filed, the trial court had rejected bail, and the petitioner had been in custody since 25 March 2026.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

Under the POCSO Act, a person below 18 years is a child, and the court treated the victim’s alleged consent as immaterial; Section 6 prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and permits imprisonment for life.

The court acknowledged the general principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, while treating the nature and gravity of the allegations, potential witness interference, and the material on record as relevant to the bail determination.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The court considered the school and medical material sufficient, at the bail stage, to treat the victim as a child under the POCSO Act.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim that she accompanied him voluntarily did not answer the allegation under Section 6.

The court held that the discrepancies concerning the destination and the completion of the investigation did not, at this stage, displace the prima facie case.

Given the seriousness of the alleged repeated assault, the potential for the petitioner to influence witnesses or hamper the trial, and the absence of a special ground for release, the court found the petitioner’s custody and residence within the trial court’s jurisdiction insufficient to justify bail.

The High Court dismissed the petition, leaving the trial court’s rejection of bail undisturbed.