Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused for offences under Sections , , of the (‘IPC’) and read with Section of (‘POCSO Act’), Krishan Pahal, J. has granted him bail subject to certain conditions, particularly on the assurance of accused that he is very much willing to take care of his wife (victim) and the infant.
The Court also directed the accused to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the victim’s newborn child till she attaining the age of majority within a period of six months from the date of release from jail.
The accused was alleged to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 13-6-2023.
The accused stated that he and the victim belonged to the same village and were neighbours. They were in love with each other and out of fear of their parents had eloped and solemnized their marriage at a temple. The victim was pregnant by six months at that time and is stated to have given birth to a female child about four months back. The accused proposed to rear his child as he is the father, and he is very much willing to keep his married wife and the newborn baby with him.
The accused further stated that the FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no proper explanation for the said delay caused. The victim is a consenting party which is evident from her statement recorded under Section of the (‘CrPC’) and as per her own statement she was 18 years old. The accused has been in jail since 5-1-2024.
The Court noted that as per the ossification test report, the victim’s age is 18.
The Court said that a person’s right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no one’s life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable.
The Court reiterated that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. Further, the Court noted that no material particulars or circumstances are suggestive that the accused is fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses.
The Court said that every now and then there is a concern regarding the application of the POCSO Act on adolescents. While the Act’s primary objective is to protect children under the age of majority from sexual exploitation, there are cases where it has been misused, particularly in consensual romantic relationships between teenage persons.
The Court said that when addressing these cases, it is crucial to:
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 led 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 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.
The Court said that the challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships. This requires a nuanced approach and careful judicial consideration to ensure justice is served appropriately.
Thus, the Court viewed that the accused has made out a case for bail.
[Satish Alias Chand v. State of U.P. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18596 of 2024, decided on 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Manvendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .