Quick Read
The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant. The Court observed that a claim of a romantic relationship or a subsequent proposal to marry cannot dilute the statutory protection available to a minor under the POCSO Act.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal also considered the prosecution’s allegation that the accused had concealed his religious identity to gain the minor’s trust, along with her age and pregnancy, while rejecting the bail application.
Introduction
The case arose from the disappearance of a minor girl in June 2025. During the investigation, the accused was identified and the missing-person report was converted into a regular FIR. The girl was subsequently recovered along with the accused at Rishikesh railway platform.
According to the prosecution, the victim had known the accused since 2024 and had communicated with him through Instagram. She alleged that in March 2024, the accused took her to a jungle on the pretext of an outing, forcibly established physical relations with her and threatened her against disclosing the incident.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused subsequently took the victim to different places, including hotels. The victim became pregnant and delivered a child on October 15, 2025. Her blood sample was subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA examination.
The accused was chargesheeted under Sections 137(2), 96 read with Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
Legal Issue
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the accused could claim bail by relying on the alleged romantic relationship with the victim, his willingness to marry her and the dispute regarding her age.
The accused argued that he had been falsely implicated and that his name was not mentioned in the original FIR. He also claimed that the victim was 19 years old when the FIR was registered and argued that even if the alleged March 2024 incident was considered, there was a dispute regarding whether she was a minor at that time.
The defence further submitted that the relationship was consensual and that the accused was willing to marry the victim to secure the future of the child.
The State opposed bail and submitted that the victim was a school-going minor and that her consent could not have legal validity under the POCSO Act. It also relied on the medical evidence and school records to establish her age.
Court Decision
The High Court rejected the bail application after considering the medical evidence and school records.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that the material available at the bail stage prima facie established that the victim was a minor when the alleged incident occurred.
The Court emphasised that once the victim is a minor under the POCSO Act, her consent cannot be relied upon as a defence.
The Court further noted the prosecution’s allegation that the accused had concealed his religious identity to gain the minor’s trust. It also took into consideration the victim’s age and the fact that she had subsequently become pregnant. Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that the accused did not make out a case for bail. The bail application was accordingly rejected.
The Court clarified that its observations were made only for deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the pending trial. The Trial Court was directed to consider the case independently on the evidence presented before it.
Implications
The ruling reinforces the statutory protection provided to children under the POCSO Act. A minor’s alleged romantic relationship with an accused person does not by itself remove the offence from the scope of the Act.
The judgment also makes clear that a subsequent willingness to marry the minor cannot be used to override the statutory framework protecting children from sexual offences. At the bail stage, courts can consider factors such as the victim’s age, medical evidence and other circumstances emerging from the investigation while determining whether the accused should be released.
The decision further highlights the importance of establishing the victim’s age through reliable records in POCSO proceedings, particularly where the accused disputes whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
Case Title: T v. State of Uttarakhand
