Marriage to prosecutrix and subsequent withdrawal of allegations justify grant of anticipatory bail in POCSO cases.

The petitioner, an Indian Army soldier, was accused in FIR No. 0018/2025 for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor.

The complainant (Respondent No. 2) initially alleged that the petitioner hypnotized and exploited her for three years, threatened her with the release of nude photographs, and that his brother also sought sexual favors.

During the investigation, the prosecutrix filed an application to the SSP Kathua and an affidavit before the Sessions Court stating her initial statement was false and made under pressure from police and relatives because she wanted to marry the petitioner.

Upon reaching the age of majority, she married the petitioner and deposed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding and external influence.

The trial court rejected the anticipatory bail plea citing the bar under Section 482(4) of the BNSS.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court for bail in anticipation of arrest.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in anticipation of arrest despite the statutory bar under Section 482(4) of the BNSS, given the change in circumstances and the marriage between the parties.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs anticipatory bail, specifically noting the bar contained in Section 482(4) regarding certain categories of offenses.

Sections 4, 6, 12, and 15 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 64, 65, 75, 351, and 352 of the BNS, 2023.

The principle of matrimonial stability and the lack of objection from the victim in discretionary bail matters.

The court observed that the prosecutrix, having attained majority, categorically retracted her allegations in a statement before the Magistrate, clarifying that the relationship was consensual and she was now married to the petitioner.

The court noted that she explicitly stated the FIR was lodged under the influence of relatives and police officials due to a temporary misunderstanding.

While the prosecution opposed the bail based on the gravity of the charges and the statutory bar under Section 482(4) BNSS, the court prioritized the fact that the private respondent (the victim) supported the petitioner’s plea and desired to live with him as his wife.

The analysis suggests that the continuation of custodial proceedings would be counter-productive to the settled matrimonial life of the parties.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 25,000 and a personal bond of the same amount, subject to conditions: he must not tamper with evidence, must not leave JK without permission, and must regularly appear before the trial court.