Victim's Testimony and Pregnancy Confirm Serious POCSO Offence: Chhattisgarh HC Denies Bail

The Chhattisgarh High Court refused bail for an accused in a minor's abduction and sexual assault case, ruling that the victim's consistent testimony and the resulting pregnancy represent grave evidence that outweighs claims of a voluntary relationship. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey heard the first bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest for offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Key Takeaways

Minor's Consent Legally Inconsequential

The court reaffirmed that even if a minor accompanies an accused voluntarily, it does not mitigate the rigors of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Corroborative Physical Evidence

The occurrence of pregnancy, even if subsequently terminated, serves as critical prima facie evidence supporting allegations of repeated sexual relations.

Testimony Reliability at Bail Stage

Where the victim and parents have supported the prosecution case during trial examinations, the court is unlikely to grant discretionary relief like bail.

Victim's Testimony in POCSO Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court meticulously examined the deposition of the victim recorded during the trial proceedings. It was noted that the victim, aged approximately 16 years and 10 months at the time of the incident, had been recovered from the applicant's village after being missing for six months. The Bench highlighted that the victim's statement categorically supported the prosecution's narrative of enticement and repeated assault.

The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that "From perusal of the statement of the victim recorded before the learned trial Court, it transpires that she has categorically stated that the applicant had taken her to his village Kumni, District Durg, by enticing her and kept her at his house for about six months. She has further deposed that, during the said period, the applicant established physical relations with her on several occasions and that, as a result thereof, she became pregnant for about three months... The said deposition prima facie supports the material allegations levelled against the applicant."

Trial Progress and Directions

Considering that the victim and her parents had already stood by their statements in the witness box, the Chhattisgarh High Court found no merit in the applicant's plea for enlargement on bail. The Bench accordingly rejected the bail application of the accused.

Ratio

The legal principle affirmed in this judgment is that in cases involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, where the victim is established to be a minor, the specific deposition of the victim regarding sexual relations and the resulting pregnancy constitute 'nature and gravity' sufficient to deny bail, especially when trial evidence already supports the prosecution.

Background

The prosecution's case began when the father of the victim lodged a missing person report on May 21, 2025, at Police Station Kharora, stating his daughter had disappeared on May 14, 2025. Investigations revealed the applicant had enticed the minor victim to his village under the pretext of marriage, where she remained for six months and became pregnant.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the victim was in a love affair and had accompanied the applicant voluntarily, claiming the allegations were concocted and that the applicant had been in custody since November 2025. The State vehemently opposed this, pointing to the victim's minority and her clear testimony before the trial court. The Chhattisgarh High Court, after perusing the case diary and trial depositions, found the allegations serious enough to warrant continued incarceration, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

Case Details:
Case No.: MCRC No. 4115 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:39924
Case Title: Manoj Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 17069