Promise, Consent and Minority under POCSO: Bail Granted in Devaraju v. State of Karnataka
Case: Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v. State of Karnataka

Factual Background

The petition before the High Court of Karnataka arose from a bail application filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 311/2024 registered at Belur Police Station, Hassan District. The petitioner was accused of committing offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that the accused had developed a relationship with the victim, a girl aged about fifteen years, and had promised to marry her. According to the charge sheet, on 18 December 2024 the accused took the victim on his motorcycle, spent the day with her, and later took her to a lodge in Belur where sexual intercourse allegedly occurred multiple times until the next morning. The victim’s school records indicated that she was born on 18 March 2010, thereby confirming that she was a minor at the time of the incident. Following the complaint and investigation, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody on 21 December 2024. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Special Court dealing with POCSO cases. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court seeking regular bail on the ground that continued detention was unnecessary since the investigation had been completed and that the circumstances of the case indicated the existence of a consensual relationship between the parties.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court examined the statements of the victim recorded during investigation as well as the medical records placed before it. The Court noted that the victim had acknowledged being in a relationship with the petitioner and that the two had been communicating regularly prior to the incident. In her interaction with the medical officer, the victim had also indicated that she had accompanied the petitioner to a lodge where sexual relations occurred during the night. Although the victim was legally a minor, the Court observed that the surrounding circumstances reflected the existence of a romantic relationship between the parties. The Court further took note of the fact that the petitioner had already been in judicial custody for a considerable period and that the investigation had been completed with the filing of the charge sheet. As a result, the need for further custodial interrogation no longer existed. The Court also considered that there were no criminal antecedents attributed to the petitioner and that the continued detention of the accused pending trial would not serve any investigative purpose. Taking these factors together, the Court concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of bail, subject to appropriate safeguards to ensure the integrity of the trial process and the protection of witnesses.

Order of the Court

The High Court allowed the criminal petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court directed that the petitioner be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 along with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. In addition, the petitioner was directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly and to appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing unless specifically exempted. The Court emphasised that compliance with these conditions was necessary to ensure the smooth progress of the trial and to prevent interference with the administration of justice.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa