Parents are entitled to anticipatory bail where allegations show only that they provided shelter.

The petitioners, who are the parents of Accused No. 1, sought anticipatory bail in Haveri Women Police Station Crime No. 77/2026.

The prosecution alleged that Accused No. 1 brought a 17-year-old girl to the petitioners’ home and sexually assaulted her there; the victim became pregnant.

The petitioners were alleged to have assisted Accused No. 1 and provided their house.

They submitted that the victim had not implicated them and that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the petitioners had assisted Accused No. 1 and might tamper with witnesses.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Whether the material on record disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds to deny the petitioners anticipatory bail.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, identified in the petition as corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The alleged offences were under Sections 87 and 64(2)(m), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 4, 6, 8 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

In deciding bail, the Court stated that relevant considerations include the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicants’ position in relation to the victim and witnesses, the risk of flight, reoffending or witness-tampering, and the applicants’ character and antecedents; the Court need not conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the victim’s statement implicated Accused No. 1 but did not state that the petitioners were involved in the offence.

On the material before it, the petitioners’ alleged role was limited to providing a house to Accused No. 1, and the Court found no major allegations or sufficient prima facie material against them.

Applying the stated bail considerations without undertaking a mini-trial, it concluded that there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at that stage to believe the petitioners were guilty of the alleged offences.

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like amount and comply with conditions concerning court attendance, cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, travel and police-station attendance, and refraining from similar offences.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the bail petition.