The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a plea of a romantic relationship or a subsequent proposal to marry cannot dilute the statutory protection granted to a minor under the POCSO Act. The Court reiterated that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant in an offence covered by the POCSO Act.
The Court was hearing the first bail application filed by the accused, who had been chargesheeted under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
According to the prosecution, the FIR was initially registered regarding the disappearance of the victim. During the investigation, the accused’s name emerged and the missing-person report was converted into a regular FIR. The victim was subsequently recovered along with the accused.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had known the victim and had communicated with her through Instagram. It was further alleged that he took her to a secluded location on the pretext of an outing, sexually assaulted her and threatened her against disclosing the incident.
The prosecution further relied upon the victim’s pregnancy and subsequent medical evidence. It was also alleged that the accused had concealed his religious identity in order to gain the minor’s trust.
The accused denied the allegations and argued that he had been falsely implicated. It was also contended that the victim was not a minor at the relevant time and that the relationship was consensual. The accused further expressed his willingness to marry the victim and secure the future of the child.
The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the victim was a school-going minor and that her consent had no legal validity under the POCSO Act.
The High Court examined the school records and medical evidence and found that they prima facie established that the victim was a minor at the relevant time.
The Court observed that once the victim is established to be a minor and the accused is charged under the POCSO Act, the minor’s consent is completely irrelevant in law.
The Court specifically rejected the argument based on a romantic relationship and proposal of marriage, holding that such circumstances cannot dilute the statutory protection provided to children under the POCSO Act.
Considering the victim’s age, medical evidence, pregnancy and the statutory bar on consent under the POCSO Act, the Court held that it was not a fit case for granting bail.
Accordingly, the Uttarakhand High Court rejected the accused’s bail application. The Court also clarified that the observations made while deciding the bail application would not influence the trial court, which would decide the case independently on its own merits.
The judgment reinforces an important principle under the POCSO Act:
A minor’s consent is legally irrelevant for offences covered by the Act.
A romantic relationship cannot by itself dilute the statutory protection available to a child.
A subsequent proposal or willingness to marry does not erase an alleged POCSO offence.
The age of the victim is a crucial factor in determining the applicability of the POCSO Act.
Bail must be considered in light of the statutory protection afforded to children.
The Uttarakhand High Court’s ruling reiterates that child protection under the POCSO Act cannot be diluted by describing the relationship as romantic or by offering to marry the minor.
