Lenient Approach Unwarranted In POCSO Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail To Man Booked For Sexually Assaulting Minor

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail petition filed by an accused booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, observing "a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted."

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "The judiciary bears a solemn duty to act as a guardian for those who are incapable to protect themselves. When the innocence of a child is violated, the law must act not merely as a punitive instrument, but as an unwavering shield. As it is often said, “The soul of a society is judged by how it treats its children, for they are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” In this context, a lenient approach is wholly unwarranted."

The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR lodged in 2024, registered at Police Station City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar, for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 137, 64(2)(M), 65(1) and 87 of the BNS.

As per the prosecution, the FIR was lodged by the mother of a 13-year-old girl, alleging that her daughter had gone missing and expressing suspicion that the petitioner had enticed her away. The suspicion was reinforced by the petitioner's absence from his own residence.

The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 04.04.2025, and the case was committed to the trial court.

During the trial, the victim was examined, where she fully supported the prosecution case, stating that the petitioner had taken her to Delhi and several places in Uttar Pradesh, kept her in rented accommodations, and subjected her to repeated sexual assaults without her consent.

The defence sought bail primarily on the grounds that the petitioner has been in custody for about 13 months, while only 5 out of 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined.

In her initial statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim allegedly stated that she had left home of her “own free will”.

Rejecting the bail plea, the High Court held that Length of incarceration alone is not a ground for bail in serious POCSO cases, especially when the trial is progressing and there is no deliberate delay by the prosecution.

Under the POCSO Act, a child below 18 years cannot legally consent, making arguments of voluntariness legally irrelevant.

The bench said, "The Respondents have placed significant reliance upon the victim's initial statement, suggesting her departure (from home) was voluntary. This argument, however, overlooks the fundamental legal presumption embedded within the POCSO Act. Section 2(1)(b) of the Act defines a “child” as any person below the age of 18 years, and the law presumes such a child to be incapable of giving valid consent to any sexual act. Consequently, the concepts of “willingness” or “voluntary departure” are legally irrelevant in the face of statutory proscription."

The victim's sworn testimony before the trial court prevails over earlier statements, and minor inconsistencies do not dilute her credibility at the bail stage, it added.

The Court observed that the POCSO Act creates a special and stringent framework, requiring heightened caution while considering bail, and held that the legislative intent to protect child victims outweighs the petitioner's claim to liberty at this stage.

While dismissing the petition, the High Court directed the trial court to rxpedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months.

Ensure that at least four prosecution witnesses are examined on each effective date of hearing.

Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, DAG, Haryana.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX