Deepak Koshale vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 66/2026 registered at Police Station : Nandini, District : Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 64(2)(M), 351(3) and 332(B) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act.

The prosecution story in brief is that complainant lodged a complaint on 01.03.2026 alleging that applicant sexually assaulted her daughter on 05 occasions between December, 2025 to January, 2026 on the pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. On such complaint, police registered offence as stated above and arrested the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no coercion on the part of present applicant and the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was love relation between them. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 02.03.2026 whereas conclusion of trial is likely to take time, therefore, instant bail application may kindly be allowed.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that given that the prosecutrix was 17 years old at the time of the incident, she remained a minor, rendering any alleged consent legally invalid.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

It appears that applicant and the prosecutrix came into contact in December 2025, subsequent to which the applicant established physical relations with her on multiple occasions under the pretext of marriage. It is contended by Mr. Patel that applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and that the relationship between the parties was entirely consensual in nature. Also, prosecutrix appeared through video-conferencing and she has submitted that she has no objection in grant of bail to the applicant.

Be that as it may, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was admittedly aged about 17 years and was, therefore, a minor in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act. It is a well-settled principle of law that the consent of a minor is non est and holds no legal validity whatsoever. Even assuming there was consent on the part of the victim, such consent cannot cure the statutory illegality or extinguish the prima facie commission of the afore-stated offence.

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected.

However, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible.