Click the Play button to listen to article

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that “the plea of romantic relationship and subsequent proposal to marry cannot dilute the statutory protection granted to minor child under the POCSO Act,” thus reiterating that a minor's consent is “completely irrelevant in the eyes of law.”

Applying this to the present case, the Court also took note of the allegation that the accused had concealed his religious identity to gain the trust of the minor and, considering her age, the medical factum of her pregnancy and the statutory bar on consent under the POCSO Act, declined to grant bail to the accused.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal passed the order while hearing the first bail application filed by the accused. After investigation, he was chargesheeted under Section 137(2), Sec 96 read with Section 64 of the BNSS, 2023 and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 

According to the prosecution, the FIR was initially lodged on June 28, 2025 regarding the disappearance of the victim. During investigation, the applicant's name came to light and the missing report was converted into a regular FIR. The victim was subsequently recovered along with the applicant- accused at Rishikesh railway platform. 

In her statement, the victim stated that she had known the applicant since 2024 and that they had been on talking terms and chatting through Instagram. She alleged that in March 2024, on the pretext of taking her for an outing, the applicant took her to a jungle, forcibly established physical relations with her and threatened her to not disclose the incident. The prosecution further alleged that the applicant subsequently took her to several places, including hotels. 

Furthermore, the victim became pregnant and delivered a baby on October 15, 2025, and her blood sample was thereafter taken and sent to the FSL for DNA matching. Moreover, the prosecution also relied upon her statement that she was not aware of the applicant's religious identity, he being a member of the Muslim community. 

Conversely, the applicant argued that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated, pointing out that his name was not reflected in the contents of the FIR and that he had been implicated and chargesheeted merely on suspicion.

Furthermore, it was submitted that the alleged incident of March 2024 was mentioned in the victim's statement despite the FIR having been lodged much later, which, according to the applicant, showed that the incident had been deliberately introduced to make out a case under the POCSO Act. On the question of age, counsel submitted that the victim was 19 years old on the date of the alleged occurrence, i.e. June 27, 2025, and that even if the March 2024 incident was taken into consideration, she was approximately 17 years and 9 months old according to her school certificate, thus creating a serious doubt regarding her age.

It was also contended that the FIR was a false and concocted version lodged by the victim's father after learning that she was six months pregnant. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant, described as a painter by profession, harboured deep affection for the victim and was willing to marry her to legitimize the relationship and secure the future of the child born from their physical relations.

The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the victim was a school-going minor whose consent held no validity in law. It was further submitted that the applicant had intentionally suppressed his religious identity and trapped the minor, resulting in her pregnancy. The State also informed the Court that the victim and her parents were completely unagreeable to any proposal of marriage and wanted strict action against the applicant. 

The State further relied upon the medical report and the doctor's statement to submit that the minor victim had been sexually assaulted by the applicant and that, having regard to the nature of the offence and the allegation concerning concealment of his religious identity, he did not deserve bail. 

Hearing the matter, the Court held:

“This court is carefully considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The medical evidence and school records prima-facie establish that victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and since the applicant is chargesheeted under the POCSO Act, therefore, minor's consent is completely irrelevant in the eyes of law. The plea of romantic relationship and subsequent proposal to marry cannot dilute the statutory protection granted to minor child under the POCSO Act.

Furthermore, the prosecution has brought forth the serious allegation regarding the concealment of religious identity to get the trust of minor. Now, considering the age of the victim, medical factum of her pregnancy, the statutory bar on consent under the POCSO Act, this court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected”.

The Court clarified that the observations made in the order would not influence the trial proceedings and that the Trial Court was free to proceed with the case on its own merits. 

Case: T Versus State Of Uttarakhand

Click Here To Read/Download Order





Tags: