Hostile Victim and Marriage Claims Pave Way for Bail in POCSO Case: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a POCSO case after the prosecutrix turned hostile and claimed to have voluntarily married the applicant. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey presided over the hearing, considering a bail application filed by a man accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Bench weighed the lengthy period of incarceration against the evidentiary developments in the ongoing trial.

Key Takeaways

Impact of Hostile Testimony

When a victim fails to support the prosecution’s narrative during trial, the evidentiary foundation for continued detention weakens significantly.

Adolescent Agency and Consent

While the law maintains a strict threshold for consent in POCSO cases, courts often consider the voluntary nature of the relationship when deciding on liberty during trial.

Trial Delay and Personal Liberty

Continued incarceration without the prospect of a speedy conclusion to the trial serves as a grounds for relief, especially when primary witnesses have been examined.

Court Observations and Directions

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in its reasoning, observed that “…nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the applicant, the age of the victim, her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she disclosed that she had accompanied the applicant to Punjab, solemnized marriage with him and lived together as husband and wife, the fact that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 02.05.2026 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, thus without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant.”

Ratio

In cases involving alleged sexual offences against minors, where the victim has already been examined by the trial court and has not supported the prosecution case, and where the accused has undergone significant pre-trial detention, the court may exercise its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to grant bail, provided there is no immediate risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Background

The prosecution alleged that in January 2026, the 17-year-old victim went missing from her home. Investigations revealed she had traveled to Punjab with the applicant, where they reportedly solemnized a marriage. Consequently, the applicant was arrested on May 2, 2026, and charged under Sections 137(2) and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the duo met via Instagram and the relationship was consensual, leading to a voluntary marriage. Critically, it was highlighted that the victim had already testified before the trial court and did not support the State's case. Conversely, the State and the objector opposed the bail, emphasizing that the victim's status as a minor rendered any 'consent' or 'marriage' legally irrelevant under the prevailing statutes. After reviewing the case diary and the statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: MCRC No. 7290 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:44998
Case Title: Uday Raj v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer; Mr. Aniket Pandey, Advocate for Objector.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 21278