Bail in a POCSO and child marriage case turned on the statement of the girl herself, with a 3 lakh payment left unexplained
Justice Milind N. Jadhav granted bail to a 29-year-old after appointing a legal aid lawyer for the 16-year-old girl, relying on her own statement while noting she said money may have changed hands between her relatives and the accused.
A 29-year-old man has been in custody since May on charges under the POCSO Act, the child marriage law and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The girl in the case was sixteen years and one month old. Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court has granted him bail. The order relies mainly on her own recorded statement, which describes leaving home voluntarily, a marriage ceremony, and more than a month living with him. It also records, without resolving it, a point raised by her legal aid lawyer: in the same statement she said that ₹3 lakh may have passed between her relatives and the applicant.
The charges
The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The charges are serious and come from several statutes: provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 including Section 64 on rape and Section 87 on kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel marriage; Section 4 and related provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; provisions of the child marriage law; and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act.
The first information report was filed on 4 May 2026 by the girl's father. It said she had not been found at home on 29 April. The Court noted that the report came six days later, and that delay alone would not defeat a prosecution. Out of concern for the child's identity, this article does not name the place or the police station.
How the Court approached the hearing
Before deciding anything, the Court made sure the girl had her own voice in the proceedings. On 5 October 2026 it directed the investigating officer to send a responsible woman police officer to serve the application on her or her guardian. That officer was to ask whether she wanted a lawyer through legal aid, and to complete the task within two days.
She did. On 9 October the Court appointed Mr Akshay Annaso Patil, an advocate of the High Court, through the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee to represent her. It directed that the papers be handed to him at once, and that the investigating officer give him the informant's details and give her family his details.
What the record showed
In the earlier order the Court had already written that the events before the FIR were extremely crucial. On the material before it, the girl had eloped with the applicant of her own volition well before 29 April. All her relatives apart from her parents knew. Her statement under Section 183 of the Sanhita, recorded before a magistrate, said she went to the applicant before leaving home, lived with him, and went through a marriage ceremony. She also referred to an element of threat. The Court noted that the two were away from her father's house for more than a month, and that nothing on record showed the family had made any effort to find her.
When the matter came back on 12 October, Mr Patil pointed the Court to a passage in that statement where she said ₹3 lakh might have been exchanged between her relatives and the applicant. The Court read the statement as a whole and concluded that it gives the prima facie impression that his association with her was without violence, force or abuse, “notwithstanding the fact that there may be any other reason for them to be together”. The order says nothing further about the payment.
Why bail followed
Justice Jadhav said the timeline leaves many questions unanswered and that the prosecution may well prove the applicant's guilt at trial. At the bail stage, the factor that weighed with him was the girl's own statement, which works in the applicant's favour: they lived together for more than a month and married in the presence of his family. The order also notes that the applicant has no criminal record and that nothing between them was violent or forced.
The prosecution relied on her age. In response the Court drew on earlier Bombay High Court decisions. In Sajid Mehendi Hasan Khan v. State of Maharashtra it had held that the stringent POCSO provisions do not stop a court from granting bail where justice requires it. That decision relied on the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras: a minor who leaves her father's protection knowing what she is doing has not been “taken” from lawful guardianship unless the accused induced her or actively helped form that intention. The Court said it was conscious of the presumption of guilt in Section 29 of the POCSO Act, under which consent is legally irrelevant. It also referred to Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra, where Justice Mridula Bhatkar treated apparent consent by a girl aged between fifteen and eighteen as a mitigating factor for the trial court, and to a later decision holding that the Section 29 presumption does not make the prosecution's version gospel truth in every case.
The final reason was the applicant's age. Keeping a young man in prison, the Court said, was likely to damage his prospects in every part of life and expose him to abuse, and in cases like this there is “a very thin line” between a punitive and a reformative approach.
Order
The applicant was ordered to be released immediately on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties. The figure is ₹25,000 in numerals, but the words in the order read ten thousand. He must report to the investigating officer on the first Sunday of each month between 10 a.m. and noon, attend every trial date, stay in Maharashtra unless the trial court permits otherwise, keep the officer informed of his address and phone number, and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. He must not contact the girl in person or by any electronic means until the trial ends. Any breach will lead to cancellation of bail.
The Court recorded its appreciation for Mr Patil's assistance and directed that his fees be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority. It added that its observations are prima facie and will not affect the trial. Mr Akshay Bankapur appeared for the applicant and Ms Anuja S. Gotad, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.