Karnataka High Court grants bail in POCSO case after victim’s grandfather says the families settled the dispute

The petitioner sought regular bail in Special Case No. 619/2025, arising from allegations that he sexually assaulted the victim, who was a minor, on two occasions and threatened her

The prosecution relied on the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and medical material indicating that she was approximately 16 years and 10 months old at the time

The petitioner submitted that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the de facto complainant—the victim’s grandfather—had filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to bail

The petitioner had been in custody since 11 August 2025

1. Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail while facing charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act, 2012

2. Whether the completion of the investigation and the de facto complainant’s no-objection affidavit supported the grant of bail, notwithstanding the victim’s statement and her minority at the time of the alleged offences

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and, as stated in the petition, Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

The charges were under Sections 96, 64(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

The Court applied its discretion to grant bail subject to conditions, taking account of the filed charge-sheet, the complainant’s no-objection affidavit, and the risk of witness interference; it cited no precedent or further statutory test

The Court acknowledged that the victim was a minor and that her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS described kidnapping and penetrative and aggravated sexual assault

It nevertheless considered that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, reducing the stated concern about witness tampering

The Court also relied on the de facto complainant’s affidavit and counsel’s submission that the parties had settled the matter, and concluded that the petitioner could be released subject to stringent conditions

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, regular court attendance, and refraining from similar offences; breach could lead the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail