Madras HC Grants Bail To 22-Year-Old Accused In POCSO Case Involving 14-Year-Old After Final Report Filed

The appellant was arrested on 31 July 2026 in Crime No. 39 of 2026, registered for offences under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the 22-year-old appellant had a romantic relationship with the 14-year-old victim, had sexual intercourse with her on 25 March 2026, and was later intercepted with her while they were attempting to go to Hogenakkal.

The Special Court dismissed his bail application on 17 August 2026.

The appellant appealed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act.

By the time of the appeal, the final report had been filed, and the victim and her mother stated that they had no objection to his release on bail.

The appeal was brought under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court’s bail reasoning relied on the circumstances that the final report had been filed and further custody was not required for investigation.

It also cited P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, [2005] AIR SCW 5560, for the proposition that the Trial Court may take appropriate action for breach of bail conditions as if it had itself imposed them.

The judgment does not set out a broader statutory test for bail.

The Court noted that the final report had been filed and that further custody was unnecessary for investigation.

It also took account of the victim’s and her mother’s stated lack of objection and viewed the prosecution allegations, at the bail stage, as appearing to concern a romantic relationship between two young people.

The Court left for trial the question whether the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault, without determining the merits of that allegation.

Considering these circumstances, it concluded that bail was appropriate, subject to conditions intended to secure the appellant’s attendance, prevent interference with witnesses or evidence, and protect the complainant.

The appellant was required to execute a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for the like sum, appear before the Trial Court every Monday at 10:30 a.m. and on all hearing dates, refrain from similar offences, absconding, or tampering with evidence or witnesses, and comply with the other specified conditions.

The police were directed to ensure the de facto complainant’s safety; breach of conditions may invite appropriate action, and absconding may result in a fresh FIR under Section 229A IPC.