A minor’s consent, romantic relationship, or marriage proposal cannot dilute POCSO’s statutory protection.

The applicant sought regular bail in Case Crime No. 0013 of 2025, Police Station Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal, registered initially pursuant to a missing-person report lodged by the victim’s father on 28 June 2025.

The applicant was charge-sheeted under Sections 137(2), 96 read with Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The informant stated that his daughter had left to appear in a B.A. examination and subsequently went missing.

During investigation, the applicant’s name emerged, and the victim was recovered with him near a railway platform at Rishikesh.

In her statement, the victim alleged that the applicant, whom she had known since 2024, had taken her to a jungle in March 2024, forcibly established physical relations with her, threatened her, and thereafter took her to various places, including hotels.

Her date of birth was recorded as 25 May 2006, and the POCSO offences were added on the basis of her age at the time of the alleged occurrence.

The victim subsequently gave birth to a child on 15 October 2025, and her blood sample was sent for DNA comparison.

The applicant had remained in custody since 28 June 2025, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The defence relied on an alleged consensual relationship, disputed the victim’s age, and stated that the applicant was willing to marry her.

The State opposed bail, asserting that the victim was a minor, that her consent was legally irrelevant, and that the applicant had concealed his religious identity; it also stated that the victim and her parents opposed marriage and sought strict action.

1. Whether the applicant, who had been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act along with the stated provisions of the BNS, was entitled to regular bail.

2. Whether the alleged romantic relationship, the victim’s asserted consent, the proposed marriage, and the applicant’s challenge to the victim’s age justified grant of bail.

3. Whether the victim’s minority, pregnancy, medical evidence, and the allegation concerning concealment of religious identity made the case unsuitable for bail.

The Court applied Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, under which aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a child attracts enhanced punishment and the statutory protection afforded to a child operates irrespective of consent.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 137(2), 96 read with Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as stated in the charge-sheet.

The governing principle applied was that a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act; an alleged romantic relationship or subsequent proposal of marriage cannot dilute the statutory protection available to a child.

The Court found that the medical evidence and school records prima facie established that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

Consequently, the defence arguments based on friendship, Instagram communications, outings, alleged consent, and the proposed marriage could not neutralise the statutory consequences under the POCSO Act.

The Court also treated the victim’s pregnancy and the prosecution’s allegations regarding concealment of the applicant’s religious identity as aggravating circumstances relevant to the bail determination.

Although the applicant relied on his period of incarceration, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of the charge-sheet, the Court concluded that the victim’s minority, the medical evidence, pregnancy, and the statutory irrelevance of consent outweighed those considerations.

The regular bail application was therefore rejected.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not influence the trial court, which was directed to proceed independently on the merits of the case.