The parties’ relationship and ages may support bail in a POCSO case.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 118/2025, registered for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 78 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The complaint followed the discovery that the 16-year-old victim, a student in Class 10, was pregnant; she had stated that she and the petitioner, aged 24, were in a relationship and had sexual relations.

The petitioner was arrested on 2 January 2026, and, after investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed, his bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on 16 July 2026.

He had been in custody for approximately nine months, and charges had not yet been framed.

The victim’s mother was served but did not appear.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail, having regard to the circumstances of the alleged offences, the victim’s statements, the petitioner’s period in custody and the completion of investigation.

Whether the petitioner’s release on bail should be made subject to conditions to secure his attendance and protect the prosecution process.

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(2)(m), 78 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court identified the parties’ relationship and ages, the petitioner’s custody, completion of investigation and the stage of the trial as relevant considerations in assessing the bail application.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and her statement to the medical officer described the relationship and sexual activity as consensual; it also noted that she was 16 and the petitioner was 24.

Treating the relationship and the parties’ ages as mitigating considerations for the bail decision, the Court also relied on the petitioner’s approximately nine months in custody, the filing of the charge sheet and the fact that charges had not yet been framed.

It emphasized that the charge-sheet allegations remained to be proved at trial and concluded that bail was warranted subject to conditions.

Conditions included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; regularly attending trial unless exempted; not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses; not committing similar offences; and not leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.