Regular bail granted where the victim described leaving voluntarily and made no sexual-assault allegation.

The petitioner was arrested in Crime No. 86 of 2026, registered by Kodigehalli Police Station after the victim’s mother reported that her daughter had left home with him.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 87, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The petitioner’s bail application before the Trial Court was rejected.

In her statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the victim said she had left voluntarily, had been in a relationship with the petitioner, and made no allegation of sexual assault.

The High Court also noted that the petitioner had previously been granted bail in a similar case brought by the victim’s mother.

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in the pending Special Case.

2. Whether the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and the other circumstances supported granting bail despite the charged offences under the BNS and POCSO Act.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The charged offences were under Sections 87, 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act; the Court did not set out or interpret the elements of those offences.

It considered the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as a relevant circumstance in deciding the bail request.

No precedent or detailed bail test was cited in the order.

The Court relied principally on the victim’s Magistrate-recorded statement that she had left with the petitioner voluntarily and that he had not sexually assaulted her.

It also noted that the petitioner had previously received bail in a similar case.

Considering these circumstances, the Court found that the request for regular bail should be allowed, subject to conditions.

Bail was subject to a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties, regular attendance before the Trial Court, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, no involvement in similar offences, and no departure from the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission.