Recently, in a significant development concerning the intersection of adolescent relationships and stringent POCSO provisions, the Uttarakhand High Court stepped in to examine whether every case involving a minor automatically justifies prolonged incarceration of the accused. The Court was hearing a bail plea filed by a 23-year-old man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') after allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor girl in Champawat district. While the allegations invoked serious offences under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court closely scrutinised the prosecutrix’s own statements and the broader circumstances surrounding the relationship before arriving at a crucial finding.
The controversy began after the victim’s mother lodged an FIR alleging sexual assault upon her minor daughter, leading to the arrest of the accused in July 2025. During the bail proceedings, counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age at the time of the incident and had voluntarily accompanied the accused due to their friendship and romantic involvement. It was further pointed out that both the prosecutrix and complainant had already testified before the trial court, reducing the possibility of witness influence. The defence also relied upon a Delhi High Court precedent dealing with consensual adolescent relationships to argue that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The State, however, strongly opposed the bail plea, considering the gravity of the charges under the POCSO Act.
Justice Alok Mahra noted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS reflected that she had affection for the accused and that the physical relationship was consensual. While acknowledging the strict nature of the POCSO framework, the Court made a notable observation that “the prosecutrix is legally a minor; however, the facts of the present case reveal that she was possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of her actions.” The Court further observed that in cases involving young offenders and consensual adolescent relationships, a liberal approach at the bail stage may sometimes be necessary to avoid the “regressive and adverse influences of prolonged incarceration.”
Consequently, while taking into account the consensual nature of the relationship, the friendship between the parties, and the applicant’s continued custody since July 2025, the Court allowed the bail application and directed his release on conditions.
Picture Source :
