Karnataka High Court grants bail to POCSO accused after the 16-year-old’s mother cites their marriage and raises no objection

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from Crime No. 15/2026 of Gadag Women Police Station.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner became acquainted with the complainant’s 16-year-old daughter, brought her to Betageri, married her, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and kidnapping.

The complainant filed an affidavit stating that she and her daughter had no objection to the petitioner’s release, citing the marriage and their belief that he would maintain a marital relationship with the victim.

The complainant and victim were present before the Court.

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, had rejected bail on 12 August 2026; the petitioner challenged that order.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in light of the complainant’s and victim’s stated lack of objection, notwithstanding the serious allegations involving a minor.

2. Whether bail should be subject to conditions concerning sureties, non-interference with witnesses, cooperation with the investigation, and non-involvement in similar offences.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail.

The prosecution case invoked Sections 64(2)(m) and 229(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The order does not cite precedents or set out a broader legal test for bail; it records that the Court considered the allegations, the complainant’s affidavit and the positions stated by the complainant and victim, and imposed conditions on release.

The Court acknowledged that serious allegations had been made against the petitioner, including allegations concerning the victim, who was stated to be 16 years old.

It nevertheless treated the complainant’s affidavit and the complainant’s and victim’s stated lack of objection as material considerations, noting that they attributed their position to the existing marriage and the prospect of a future relationship.

On that basis, and in view of the asserted compromise, the Court considered release on bail justified.

It did not provide further analysis of the statutory allegations or explain how the complainant’s position affected their legal assessment.

The petitioner must not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, must cooperate with the investigating officer until completion of the investigation, and must not involve himself in similar offences.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if the conditions are violated.