Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sex Offenders Act (POCSO)
Last Updated on October 17, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of offenses under POCSO Act on the condition that he marry the victim and look after a child born to their relative. The accused were charged with sexual assault under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the POCSO Act for allegedly having a physical relationship with a 15-year-old girl under false promise of marriage. The result of this relationship was supposed to be the birth of a child.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had exploited the girl, leading to her impregnation, and later breached the promise of marriage when he threatened her. On the other hand, the defense counsel for the accused maintained his innocence and stated that the victim was of legal age at the time of the incident as determined by an ossification test which put her age at 18 years. The defense attorney further pointed out that the victim in his statement pursuant to Section 164 of the Civil confirmed that no force was used against her.
The defendant also expressed his readiness to marry the victim and take responsibility for the child. Despite the state’s opposition, the court took into account the birth of a child from the relationship, raising complex questions about the nature of consent and the applicability of POCSO provisions in such cases. The court cited its previous decisions including Ramashankar Vs. State of U.P. and Atul Mishra Vs. State of U.P., which addressed similar concerns.
He emphasized that although the legal provisions correctly define sexual offences, a pragmatic approach is needed when assessing cases involving consensual relationships between young individuals. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing actual cases of exploitation from consensual relationships, noting that the latter required a more nuanced judicial approach. The court further reiterated that bail should be regarded as the rule and imprisonment as the exception, as upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Law Enforcement.
She emphasized that the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must not be curtailed unreasonably. Therefore, if the court finds that there are no substantial facts or circumstances to indicate that the accused is a fugitive from justice or obstructing the administration of justice or creating other difficulties in the form of repeated offenses or intimidation of witnesses, it will grant the bail application.
However, when granting bail, the court imposed several conditions on the defendant. He is required to marry the victim within three months and deposit Rs 2,00,000 as a fixed deposit in the name of the newborn, thereby ensuring her financial security till she reaches the age of majority. The court further ordered the defendant to participate in court proceedings and refrain from tampering with evidence. The accused was warned that failure to comply with these conditions could lead to the cancellation of his bail.
Case Law: Abhishek Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
