Justice Krishan Pahal emphasized, “The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.”
Prayagraj, May 8 – The Allahabad High Court has made an important observation regarding the misuse of the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) in cases involving teenage love. The court pointed out that the law, originally enacted to protect minors from sexual abuse, is increasingly being misused to criminalise consensual romantic relationships among adolescents.
While hearing a bail plea, Justice Krishan Pahal remarked that,
“the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which was enacted to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation, has now become a tool for their exploitation.”
He clarified that the law was never intended to target young couples involved in mutual love.
“The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents,” the judge stated, while underlining the need for courts to consider the nature of such relationships in bail decisions.
Justice Pahal further warned against the danger of ignoring the version of the alleged victim in such cases.
“It would amount to the perversity of justice if the statement of the victim was ignored and the accused was left to suffer in jail,” he observed.
These remarks were made by the court while hearing the bail application of an 18-year-old boy, Raj Sonkar, who was arrested in March this year under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). He had been accused of raping a 16-year-old girl.
During the hearing, Raj Sonkar’s lawyer told the court that the relationship was consensual and that there was no medical evidence to support the charge of rape. It was also argued that Raj Sonkar had no previous criminal record, and if granted bail, he would not misuse the liberty given to him.
ALSO READ: POCSO Act || Kolkata Court Sentences Man to Death for Raping 7-Month-Old Baby
The court took note of several key aspects of the case:
- The consensual nature of the relationship,
- The lack of medical corroboration,
- A 15-day delay in filing the FIR (First Information Report),
- And the clean background of the accused.
After considering these facts, the court on April 29 granted bail to Raj Sonkar. It made it clear that the bail order did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.
