Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Man In POCSO Case Who Shared Co-Accused’s Number, Finding No Material He Knew The Girl Was Kidnapped

The petitioner, accused No. 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 137(2) and 64 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner gave accused No. 1 the mobile number of accused No. 4, enabling accused No. 1 to stay with the victim at accused No. 4’s house after the victim was taken from her home.

The petitioner maintained that he was innocent and that the prosecution material showed only that he had provided the contact number.

The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed; the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 7 May 2026.

Accused No. 4 had previously been granted bail, and the petitioner relied on parity.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In considering bail, the Court assessed the petitioner’s alleged role and the material linking him to the offences, whether further custodial investigation was required, the length of custody and completion of the investigation, parity with a co-accused, and whether conditions could address the prosecution’s concerns.

The Court considered the petitioner’s alleged contribution to be limited to providing accused No. 1 with accused No. 4’s mobile number. It found no material at that stage showing that the petitioner knew of the alleged kidnapping or of the subsequent stay at accused No. 4’s house, and therefore saw no reason to believe that the petitioner was implicated in the POCSO or BNS Section 137 offences.

The investigation and charge sheet were complete, and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary; the petitioner had also spent more than five and a half months in custody.

The Court additionally noted that accused No. 4, against whom it regarded the allegations as similar, had been granted bail. It held that conditions could address the State’s apprehensions about interference with the proceedings.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the Investigating Officer if required, attendance before the trial court when directed, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, and commission of no similar or other offence while the case is pending; breach would result in cancellation of bail.