Allahabad HC Raises Concern Over Misuse Of POCSO Act Against Teenagers Involved In Consensual Romantic Relations

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal added that while dealing with such cases, the challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships, and this requires a "nuanced approach" and "careful judicial consideration" to ensure that justice is served appropriately.

The Court further elucidated the core factors which should be considered by the Court while dealing with such cases, and they are:

A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully examined.

B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the alleged victim should be given due consideration. If the relationship is consensual and based on mutual affection, this should be factored into decisions regarding bail and prosecution.

C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes, such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system should aim to balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here the age comes out to be an important factor.

D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely, ensuring that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very individuals it is meant to protect.

These observations were made by the single judge while granting bail to one Satish Alias Chand who had been booked under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 5(J)2/6 POCSO Act on the allegations of enticing away the informant's minor daughter in June 2023.

Before the High Court, his counsel argued that the victim was a consenting party, which was evident from her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as per her own statement that she was 18 years old.

It was also submitted that the applicant and the victim were deeply in love and eloped to get married in a temple, though their marriage is not officially registered.

It was further submitted that the victim was six months pregnant at the time of the incident and had given birth to a daughter four months earlier and now, the applicant wishes to take responsibility for his child and is committed to supporting and living with his wife and newborn.

At the outset, the Court noted that the victim's age is 18 as per the ossification test report. The Court also considered the submission of the state's counsel, who could not show any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the denial of bail to the applicant.

“It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State,” the Court said.

In view of this, the Court granted him bail on the condition of depositing (fixed deposit) Rs.2,00,000/—in the name of the victim's new-born child until she attains the age of majority within six months from the date of release from jail.

Case title - Satish Alias Chand vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 421

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 421

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder