Karnataka HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case, Citing Completed Probe, Victim’s Mother’s No-Objection And Families’ Understanding Of Possible Marriage After She Reaches Legal Age

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, given the allegations, his custody, and the completion of the investigation.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered released on regular bail in Spl. S.C. No. 75/2026.

It also directed

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the like sum, attendance on all hearing dates, a prohibition on threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, and a prohibition on involvement in future offences.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail for violation of these conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and must not influence the trial.

01Facts

The petitioner, aged 22, was arrested on 23 May 2026 in Haveri Women Police Station Crime No. 62/2026, registered for alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

pp. 2–4

The investigation was completed and a charge-sheet citing 28 witnesses was filed; the case proceeded as Spl. S.C. No. 75/2026.

pp. 2–4

After the Special Court rejected his bail application, the petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 2–4

The victim’s mother filed an affidavit stating that she had no objection to bail, and affidavits referred to a possible marriage after the victim attained the legally prescribed age.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, given the allegations, his custody, and the completion of the investigation.

pp. 2–6

ii.2. Whether the affidavits expressing the victim’s mother’s no-objection and the families’ understanding could be considered in deciding bail, notwithstanding that the victim was a minor at the relevant time.

pp. 4–7

03Law Applied

The Court considered its bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), alongside the alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

pp. 2, 7–8

It treated completion of investigation, the applicant’s period in custody, the status of the trial, and the need to protect the victim and secure the accused’s attendance as relevant bail considerations.

The Court expressly stated that the parties’ understanding could not determine the merits of the prosecution or nullify statutory provisions, but could be considered as one relevant circumstance in the bail decision.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64 Section 115 Section 351

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 6 Section 8

04Reasoning

The Court weighed the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s minority against the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 23 May 2026, the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed.

pp. 4–6

It considered the mother’s no-objection and the families’ affidavits only as relevant circumstances—not as resolving the prosecution or displacing the statutory provisions.

pp. 5–7

It concluded that continued detention was not necessary, provided conditions were imposed to protect the victim and ensure the petitioner’s attendance at trial.

p. 6