Factors Suggesting Consent Can Be Considered For Bail Despite Victim Being Minor: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case, noting that although a minor's consent is legally invalid, circumstances suggesting the victim's cooperation may be taken into account while considering bail.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde deliberated on the petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The petitioner was accused of various offences including kidnapping and sexual assault involving a 16-year-old girl.

Court's Observations on Consent and Custody

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed. It observed that the petitioner had already spent approximately nine months in custody. While acknowledging the legal position regarding the age of consent, the Court highlighted that the factual matrix indicated a level of cooperation from the victim's side.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Though the consent of the victim is not consent in the eye of law since she is aged under 18, the Court is of the view that the factors referred to above may be taken into consideration while considering the petition seeking bail. More so in a situation where the investigation is over and the accused has spent around 9 months in custody." 

In granting relief, the Court relied on the ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in Vijay Chand Dubey v. the State of Maharashtra and another and the Supreme Court in Deshraj alias Musa v. State of Rajasthan and another, where discretion was exercised in favor of the accused despite the heinous nature of allegations under the POCSO Act.

Specific Directions Issued by the High Court

To ensure the petitioner's cooperation during the trial, the Court has the following directions:

"i. Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.120/2025 on executing a personal bond for ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

ii. Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer of concerned Police Station once every month on the third Saturday between 10:00 am to 7:00 pm for the first three months and thereafter as and when called;

iii. Petitioner shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;

iv. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

v. Petitioner shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner;

vi. Petitioner shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or charge of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

vii. Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail revocation of this order."

Background:

The case originated from a complaint filed by the victim's father on August 29, 2025, alleging that his 16-year-old daughter was missing and suspected to have been kidnapped by the petitioner. Two days later, the victim returned home wearing a 'Thali' (mangalsutra). In her statement, she alleged that the petitioner, a family acquaintance, had taken her to various locations and engaged in sexual acts.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 137(2), 64, 65(1), 96, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The petitioner's counsel argued that the acts appeared consensual as the victim had accompanied the petitioner voluntarily to his aunt's house. The State opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the offences and the legal incapacity of a minor to grant consent. After considering the 9-month incarceration period and the completion of the investigation, the Court allowed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104974 OF 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:KHC-D:8023
Case Title: SHREEDHAR S. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent(s): SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 204