In Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotelal Kumar v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57277 of 2026 (decided 2 November 2026), the Patna High Court granted regular bail to a man in custody since 20 April 2026 in Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 154 of 2026 of East Champaran, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 64, 69, 352, 351(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Justice Raj Kumar noted the long duration of the relationship appearing from the FIR and the victim's own statement, and the absence of corroboration in the medical evidence on record, and directed release on bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties — subject to prior verification of criminal antecedents.
The rival narratives
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner maintained sexual relations with a girl of about fifteen — the age stated in the FIR — over a period of one to one and a half years on a false promise of marriage; that on 25 March 2026 he took her from her home and forcibly had relations with her; and that a co-accused confined the two in a room while others assaulted and threatened the informant when she protested. The State and the informant pressed the refusal to marry after a physical relationship as the gravamen.
The defence pointed to a five-day delay in the FIR, a medical report recording neither external injury nor spermatozoa, and — most significantly — the victim's own statement under the BNSS giving her age as seventeen and describing a four-day stay with the petitioner at Motihari, suggesting a continuing and consensual association. The petitioner, with a clean record, had been in judicial custody since 20 April 2026.
What weighed with the Court
- Duration: the FIR and the victim's statement themselves disclosed a relationship running well over a year, not a sudden act.
- Medical evidence: the allegations stood uncorroborated by the medical report on record.
- Custody: over six months in judicial custody with trial yet to progress.
- Antecedents: a clean record, protected by a verification condition before release.
Bail followed on bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the designated court at Motihari, on conditions of cooperation with trial, a close relative standing as one bailor, appearance on every date with cancellation for two consecutive unexplained absences, and completion of antecedent verification within ten days.
The adolescent-relationship problem in POCSO practice
Cases at the border of majority — where the alleged victim is sixteen or seventeen and the record discloses a sustained relationship — occupy a difficult space in POCSO litigation. The statute admits no consent below eighteen, and nothing in a bail order erodes that rule. Yet bail courts must decide custody today, on a record pointing in two directions about age and voluntariness. Orders like this one resolve the tension pragmatically: liberty pending trial, hedged by conditions that protect the complainant's side — mandatory attendance, a family surety, and antecedent screening — while the age question is left to the documentary hierarchy of Section 94 of the JJ Act at trial.
| Issue | Bail stage | Trial stage |
|---|---|---|
| Age of the victim | Discrepancies noted as a factor | Proved by the Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy of documents |
| Consent | Voluntariness of association considered for custody only | Irrelevant if victim below eighteen |
| Medical report | Lack of corroboration aids bail | Conviction can still rest on reliable testimony |
Practice note: Nothing in a bail order forecasts the verdict. The presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act operate at trial once foundational facts are proved, and breach of any bail condition — above all contact with the victim's family — is the surest route back to custody.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a long consensual-looking relationship matter in a POCSO bail plea?
At the bail stage, courts sometimes weigh the nature and duration of the relationship as it appears from the FIR and the victim's statements, together with discrepancies about age, in deciding whether continued custody is necessary. It bears only on bail; if the victim is proved at trial to be below eighteen, consent is legally irrelevant to conviction.
How do courts treat conflicting indications of the victim's age at the bail stage?
An FIR stating one age and a statement under the BNSS recording another creates a question that only trial evidence — school records, birth certificate, or ossification in the statutory hierarchy — can settle. At the bail stage the discrepancy is a factor, not a finding.
What is the effect of a medical report that does not corroborate the allegations?
It does not end the prosecution, since conviction can rest on reliable testimony alone. But at the bail stage, the absence of medical corroboration, combined with delay in the FIR and a continuing relationship, can persuade a court that custody pending trial is not required.
What does antecedent verification before release mean?
The court directed that bail bonds not be accepted until the accused's criminal history is verified, and that they be refused if he is found involved in any other case — a safeguard ensuring the concession of bail is not extended to a repeat offender, with verification to be completed within ten days.