‘She understands consequences’: Why Karnataka High Court granted bail to a 30-year-old man in POCSO case

Background

• The petitioner was seeking bail in a case registered in Hassan district.
• He faced charges under sections 137(2) (kidnapping), 75 (sexual harassment), 96 (procuration of child), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 64 (rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
• The prosecution alleged that on December 18, 2024, the petitioner took the 15-year-old survivor to a lodge and had sexual intercourse with her multiple times.
• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the two were involved in a romantic relationship, which was corroborated by the survivor’s statements to the investigating officer and the examining doctor.
• It was further contended that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since December 21, 2024, and since the chargesheet had already been filed, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
• Conversely, the Additional State Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, emphasising that the survivor was a minor at the time of the incident and had stated to the police that the intercourse was forcible.

‘Survivor is having love affair’

• As per the girl’s school records, her year of birth is 2010, which makes her about 15 years old.
• The girl, in her statement to the investigating officer, said that she was pursuing a love affair with the petitioner, and on coming to know the same, her family members scolded her, which she intimated to the petitioner.

• At the time, the petitioner told the girl that he would marry her.
• It is clear that the survivor is having a love affair with the petitioner.
• As the chargesheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation.
• The petitioner has been in judicial custody since December 2024. He has no criminal antecedents.

What other courts said

• While granting bail to a man in a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court recently observed that an FIR cannot be quashed merely because the survivor describes the relationship as “consensual.”
• The Orissa High Court said in a judgment that an adolescent consensual relationship is legally distinguishable from sexual abuse and that criminalising such a relationship is impermissible in law.
• In November 2025, the Delhi High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings involving a child (now an adult) who married when she was a minor, resulting in her husband being booked under the POCSO Act. The court held that an order quashing the man’s prosecution sits “squarely at odds with the legislative purpose of both POCSO and the child marriage law, which is to deter early marriage and sexual exploitation of children.”