The Allahabad High Court observed that POCSO Act has become a tool for exploitation and it was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. The Court added that the fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: The Allahabad High Court raised significant concerns about the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, noting that it has increasingly become “a tool for exploitation” rather than serving its original purpose.
The Court underscored that the Act was never intended to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between adolescents, highlighting the importance of considering the context of such relationships when adjudicating cases.
This observation came during the hearing of a bail application in a case involving charges under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act, all pending trial.
Justice Krishan Pahal, presiding over the case, stated,
“POCSO Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Nowadays more often than not it has become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.”
The case at hand involved allegations that the applicant had enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, who was about 13 years old.
Representing the appellant was Advocate Raj Kumar Singh, while Advocate Ajeet Kumar Singh appeared for the respondent. In reviewing the circumstances, the Court expressed concerns over the potential misuse of the POCSO Act, noting,
“This situation exemplifies how the misuse of protective laws like the POCSO Act can lead to significant injustices. It underscores the need for careful verification of facts, especially in sensitive cases involving minors, to ensure that the law is applied appropriately and that justice is served for all parties involved.”
The Court further emphasized the necessity of taking into account the consensual nature of the relationship, particularly when considering bail, stating that disregarding the victim’s statement could result in “perversity of justice” if the accused were to suffer unjustly in jail.
In its observations, the Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595), reiterating the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” The judgment stressed that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment,” and urged courts to recognize this well-established principle.
The Court also addressed procedural delays, summoning the Chief Medical Officer and Additional Director of Health to explain the delays in conducting ossification tests. It highlighted the undue harassment faced by victims due to these delays, which are often caused by a shortage of radiologists in various districts.
Considering all these factors, the Court concluded that the applicant had made a sufficient case for bail and accordingly granted the application.
The matter has been listed for further proceedings on September 27, 2024.
Case Title:
Prakash Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on POCSO Act
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
