Minor Prosecutrix Possessed Sufficient Maturity To Understand Consequences Of Her Actions: Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail In POCSO Case

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the POCSO Act, observing that although the prosecutrix was legally a minor, the material on record indicated that she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and was possessed of sufficient “understanding, maturity and discernment” to comprehend the nature and consequences of her actions.

The Court observed that while the provisions of the POCSO Act are stringent in nature, such rigour does not preclude the Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. It further observed that in cases involving young offenders and consensual relationships between adolescents, a liberal approach may be warranted at the stage of bail so as to prevent the “regressive and adverse influences of prolonged incarceration”.

Justice Alok Mahra was dealing with a bail application filed by an accused arrested in connection with offences under Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 65(1) and 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that the applicant had sexually assaulted her minor daughter. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The applicant contended that at the time of the incident he was 23 years of age and the victim was above 16 years. It was submitted that they had a friendship and relations were made consensually, which was corroborated by the statement of the victim. It was further pointed out that the victim and the complainant had already been examined as PW1 and PW2, and that the applicant had been in custody since 08.07.2025.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Varun Kumar Singh v. State, which dealt with a case arising out of romantic relationship, to support the applicant's case.

The State opposed the bail application.

The Court noted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS revealed that she had liking for the applicant and that physical relations between them were made with her consent.

It further observed that although the provisions of the POCSO Act are stringent in nature, such rigour does not preclude the Court from exercising discretionary jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant in order to secure the ends of justice.

“It is, no doubt, true that under the purview of the POCSO Act, the prosecutrix is legally a minor; however, the facts of the present case reveal that she was possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of her actions, and that she had voluntarily joined the company of the applicant.

It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts that, in cases involving young offenders and consensual relationships between adolescents, a liberal approach may be warranted at the stage of bail, so as to prevent the regressive and adverse influences of prolonged incarceration and to further the principle of best interest of both the parties involved”, the court observed in this matter.

Consequently, considering the friendship between the applicant and the victim, the consensual nature of the relationship as reflected from the victim's statement, and the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the Court held that it was a fit case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the bail application was allowed.

Case No.: BA1 No. 2403 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order