Karnataka High Court grants bail in POCSO case involving pregnant minor after families say couple will marry when she turns 18

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case arising from Crime No. 258/2026, registered after the minor victim—his maternal niece—reported that she had become pregnant following sexual intercourse with him.

The petitioner was arrested on 14 July 2026; the investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed. The Trial Court rejected his bail application on 5 September 2026

The petitioner and the victim’s parents submitted that the couple were in a relationship and that they intended to arrange their marriage after she attained majority; the petitioner’s parents filed an affidavit to that effect.

The prosecution noted that the victim was a minor and that the DNA report had not yet been received.

The petitioner, aged 25, had no other criminal antecedents and was said to be an agriculturist.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, despite the allegations involving a minor victim and pregnancy

Whether the circumstances relied on by the petitioner, including the parties’ relationship and the proposed marriage after the victim attained majority, supported the grant of bail

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision identified in the Court’s order as governing the bail application.

The alleged offences were under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 12, 5(j)(ii), 5(n) and 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court also relied on a coordinate Bench decision, Crl.P. No. 14246/2025, which had granted bail in similar circumstances, including where the accused was identified as the biological father of the fetus and the investigation was complete.

The order does not set out a broader statutory test for bail; it considers the completed investigation, the petitioner’s circumstances and the cited precedent.

The Court noted that the charge sheet had been filed and did not identify any continuing need for the petitioner’s custodial interrogation.

It also considered that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents, that the families supported a marriage after the victim attained majority, and that the petitioner’s parents had filed an undertaking concerning that proposed marriage.

Treating the circumstances as similar to those in the coordinate Bench decision, the Court concluded that bail was warranted, notwithstanding the prosecution’s submission that the victim was a minor and the DNA report remained pending.

He must execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attend hearings unless excused, refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, avoid similar offences, and not leave the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.