Date of Order: 18 November 2025

Facts of the Case

The matter occurred when a primary health centre reported a case of underage pregnancy after a 13-year-old girl who visited them for a medical examination and was found to be pregnant. The police registered a case under the POCSO Act, acting on this information, and identified a 20-year-old boy as the alleged perpetrator. During the investigation, the girl stated before the police that she was in a romantic relationship with the accused and that the sexual act had taken place with her willing participation. The same was reiterated to the magistrate. She described him as “practically her husband”. This gave the parties involved an insight into her relationship. The girl’s mother, after receiving notice of the bail proceedings, appeared before the Court and informed that she had no objection to the accused being released on bail. A charge-sheet was subsequently filed under Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, though charges had not yet been framed. On the grounds of his youth and nature of the relationship as stated by the survivor, the accused prayed for bail.

Contentions of the Parties

The applicant submitted that the incident did not stem from coercion or abuse, but from a voluntary relationship between two young individuals. It was argued that the survivor’s consistent statements before authorities reflected the absence of force or manipulation. The applicant emphasised that the accused was a daily-wage earner in his early twenties and that his continued detention would irreparably affect his life.

The State acknowledged that the survivor was only 13 years old and that her consent was legally immaterial under the POCSO Act. Given the factual matrix of the case and the relationship of the individuals involved, the discretion was with the court.

The survivor’s mother did not contest the grant of bail and has stated that she has consented to the said relationship. It was noted that the mother of the survivor did not perceive the accused as having exploited her daughter. The Court observed that the mother’s acceptance of the relationship appeared to be influenced by her possible lack of awareness that such an act is illegal under the POCSO Act.

Court’s Analysis

Notwithstanding the survivor’s statements, the Court observed that the law does not recognise the consent of a minor in matters concerning sexual activity. However, the circumstances leading up to this case indicated that the relationship was adolescent in nature and unlikely to be an incident of predatory behaviour. It was highlighted by the Court that the survivor’s recounting of the story was consistent, and the mother’s conduct also pointed towards acceptance of the relationship. There was a reference made to the 2021 judgment of the Madras High Court in Vijayalakshmi v. State, which discusses the need for the justice system to differentiate between exploitative offences and consensual adolescent relationships that are often prosecuted under POCSO. The Court noted that criminalising such situations often leads to disproportionate harm for young boys whose actions, while legally punishable, may not reflect criminal intent.

Order of the Court

Taking into account the overall circumstances leading up to the case,  the relationship between the two young individuals, the absence of allegations of force, and the positions taken by the survivor and her mother, the Court held that continued imprisonment of the accused was not warranted. Specific conditions were imposed along with granting of bail. Specific conditions stated that the accused must not tamper with evidence, must appear before the trial court as required, must not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya without permission and must refrain from contacting the survivor during the course of the trial unless expressly allowed by the Court. A personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the same amount was imposed. The petition was accordingly allowed.

Written by Adv. Vamsi Mohana