The Allahabad High Court recently noted that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is being misused against teenagers in consensual romantic relationships [Satish Alias Chand vs State of UP and 3 Others].
Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized the need for a nuanced approach and careful judicial consideration in such cases to ensure appropriate justice. The challenge, according to the Court, lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships.
“This Court has repeatedly expressed concern regarding the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on adolescents. While the Act’s primary objective is to protect children under the age of 18 from sexual exploitation, there are instances where it has been misused, especially in consensual romantic relationships between teenagers,” the Court said.
While addressing such cases, the Court stated it is crucial to:
Assess the context: Each case should be evaluated based on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of the relationship and the intentions of both parties should be carefully examined.
Consider the 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 influence decisions regarding bail and prosecution.
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, with age being an important factor.
Judicial discretion: Courts should use their discretion wisely to ensure that the application of POCSO does not inadvertently harm the individuals it is meant to protect.
The Court made these observations while granting bail to an accused in a POCSO Act case.
The accused, Satish alias Chand, arrested on January 5, had allegedly “enticed away” the informant’s minor daughter in June 2023. Seeking bail, Satish’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated, as the victim was a consenting party and was 18 years old according to her statement.
The Court was told that the accused and victim were in love and had eloped and married in a temple out of fear of their parents. It was also revealed that the victim was six months pregnant at the time and has since given birth. The counsel for the accused stated that Satish intends to raise the child and live with his wife.
The Court noted that the victim’s age was confirmed to be 18 years as per the ossification test. The State did not present exceptional circumstances to warrant denial of bail.
“It is a 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 suggesting that the applicant would flee from justice, thwart the course of justice, repeat offenses, or intimidate witnesses have been shown by the learned AGA for the State,” the single-judge stated.
In light of these considerations, the Court granted bail to the accused, subject to the condition that he will take care of the victim and their child.
“The applicant shall deposit a fixed sum of ₹2,00,000 in the name of the newborn child of the victim until she reaches the age of majority within six months from the date of release from jail,” the Court directed.
Advocate Manvendra Kumar represented the accused, and Advocate Pranshu Kumar represented the State.
