Subsequent marriage to a minor victim does not absolve POCSO offenses or justify regular bail.

The accused/applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 167/2025 involving charges under Sections 69, 123, 89, 79, 351, and 115(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act

The prosecutrix initially alleged that the applicant established a relationship with her when she was 16 years old, resulting in repeated sexual intercourse under false promises of marriage, two pregnancies, and subsequent abortions

After the applicant was arrested and granted interim bail for the specific purpose of marriage, the parties performed a Nikah on February 12, 2026

Following the marriage, the prosecutrix—a law student—testified before the trial court that her initial allegations were false and that she had signed the complaint without reading it

1. Whether the subsequent marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix absolves the accused of criminal liability for the purpose of granting regular bail in a POCSO matter

2. Whether the retraction of allegations by a prosecutrix who is legally literate (a law student) constitutes sufficient grounds for bail despite prior contradictory statements under Section 164 CrPC

The court primarily considered Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which penalizes aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

It applied the principle that marriage to the victim does not negate the commission of sexual offences against a minor

holding that statements made by a literate person (specifically a law student) before a Magistrate carry significant weight and cannot be easily dismissed as coerced or misunderstood

The court found the applicant’s reliance on the marriage and the prosecutrix’s retraction unconvincing.

It noted that the prosecutrix, being a law student, could not reasonably claim she was unaware of the contents of an FIR she had translated from English to Hindi

The court emphasized that she had reiterated her allegations before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and failed to disclose the identity of the counsel she blamed for "drafting" false charges

The court characterized the marriage as a strategic "ploy" to secure bail rather than a mitigating factor, noting that the alleged rapes occurred when the victim was a minor

It concluded that granting bail in such circumstances would encourage lawlessness and undermine the protection intended for minors under the POCSO Act

It held that the subsequent marriage does not absolve the accused of repeated acts of rape committed while the prosecutrix was a minor, and the prima facie false nature of the prosecutrix’s retraction—given her status as a law student—did not merit the exercise of discretionary relief

The court directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for the accused's notification