Specific child-victim allegations and ongoing investigation justified denying anticipatory bail in a POCSO case.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 240/2026 of Muddebihal Police Station. The complaint initially alleged offences under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

During investigation, the victim, stated to be aged 17 years and 4 months, alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly sexually assaulted her and threatened her; the investigating officer consequently sought addition of offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The investigation was ongoing, and the prosecution and the victim’s mother opposed the application.

1. Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the victim’s statement and the stage of investigation justified refusing anticipatory bail.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail. The alleged offences included Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act; the court noted that the offence under Section 6 carries a minimum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment and may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life.

The court also considered Section 29 of the POCSO Act, observing that its presumption arises at trial, while treating the victim’s statement to the investigating officer as material that could not be disbelieved at the anticipatory-bail stage without reason. No judicial precedent was cited.

Although the initial complaint did not allege penetrative sexual assault, the victim’s subsequent written statement specifically alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and the investigating officer had sought addition of the corresponding offences. The court found no basis at that stage to reject the victim’s statement.

It also considered the investigation incomplete, the petitioner’s presence necessary for further investigation, the possibility of witness tampering or obstruction, and the gravity of the alleged offence. The petitioner had produced no material showing that the victim was over eighteen.

The criminal petition was dismissed.