SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to an individual accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, acknowledging that while a minor’s consent lacks legal validity, the specific context of a consensual adolescent relationship can be considered during bail proceedings.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that the ruling was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar in a case stemming from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Police Station Magam. The accused faces charges under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) related to kidnapping and rape, in addition to Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
During the court proceedings, it was noted that the prosecutrix, in her deposition before the trial court, stated that she had willingly accompanied the accused. She further indicated that she was in a romantic relationship with him and had entered into a physical relationship by her own free will.
The court also took into consideration the testimony provided by the girl’s mother. The mother informed the court that the couple were in love and that her daughter had left home voluntarily. Following the accused’s arrest, the prosecutrix continued to reside with the accused’s family, expressing her intention to marry him.
Justice Dhar referenced a judgment from the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another. He underscored that while the consent of a minor is not legally recognized under the POCSO Act, the surrounding factual circumstances of such relationships can be pertinent when evaluating the limited scope of a bail application.
The High Court determined that, given the specific facts and circumstances of this particular case, denying bail would constitute a “perversity of justice.” The court also observed that all primary prosecution witnesses had already completed their testimony, thereby significantly diminishing the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the bail application. It was explicitly clarified that the observations made in the order were strictly confined to the determination of the bail application and would not prejudice the merits of the ongoing trial.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
