Police let POCSO victim go with accused despite case; Madras High Court orders inquiry and safety measures

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for production and release of her 19-year-old daughter, who was a victim in a pending POCSO case against the fourth respondent; the fifth respondent was also implicated in that case

The petitioner alleged that the accused had threatened her daughter and taken her into their custody, and that police had failed to act on her complaint

During the proceedings, the daughter was produced before the Court. She stated that she was born on 31 December 2007, was a major, had gone with the fourth respondent voluntarily, and did not wish to return to her parents

The police acknowledged that an officer had permitted her to leave with the fourth respondent, who was an accused in the POCSO case

Whether the daughter was in illegal detention warranting habeas corpus relief, given her stated age and expressed wish to live independently

Whether the police response in permitting her to leave with the fourth respondent, an accused in the POCSO case, required further action

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ of habeas corpus where a person is alleged to be unlawfully detained.

The Court also applied the bail conditions imposed on the fourth respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 6891 of 2025, including the prohibition against inducement, threat or promise, and directed action in light of their alleged violation

On questioning the daughter, the Court found that she was 18 and unequivocally did not wish to go with either parent. It therefore concluded that she was not in illegal detention, so habeas corpus relief was not warranted

Separately, the Court considered it unacceptable that police had permitted her to go with the fourth respondent despite her status as a victim in the pending POCSO case and his status as an accused. It also noted the apparent conflict with the bail conditions and directed appropriate follow-up

It directed the Superintendent of Police to inquire into the handling of the matter, take appropriate action in accordance with law, and ensure the victim’s safety. It further directed the third respondent to take appropriate steps concerning the alleged violation of the bail conditions imposed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 6891 of 2025