Karnataka HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case, Citing Victim’s Statement That She Had Been In An Eight-Year Relationship With Accused

The petitioner sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 191/2026 of Ranebennur Police Station, registered under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that he committed penetrative and aggravated sexual assault on the victim in April 2026.

The victim was found to be pregnant after a medical examination in July 2026; she was then aged 18 years and two months, although the Court recorded that she was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.

The petitioner maintained that they had been in a relationship and that he had been falsely implicated.

In her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim said that she was in love with the petitioner, that their relationship had lasted about eight years, and that she had accompanied him voluntarily.

The petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody before filing this bail petition.

The Court considered the bail jurisdiction invoked under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged offences were under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

In exercising its bail discretion, the Court identified the relevant considerations as the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the potential punishment, the likelihood of absconding, the accused’s character and antecedents, and the risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the prosecution materials and noted that the victim’s statement did not implicate the petitioner; instead, she described a relationship with him and said that she had accompanied him voluntarily.

It held that the medical report, including the indication that an abortion had taken place, did not by itself warrant rejecting bail in the circumstances of the case.

Weighing the allegations and relevant bail factors, the Court concluded that the petitioner could be released subject to conditions.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring attendance at every hearing, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, cooperation with the Investigating Officer until completion of the investigation, and no involvement in future offences.

The Court stated that breach of the conditions could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail and clarified that its observations were limited to disposal of the petition.