Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case, Emphasizes Prudent Application of the Act in Adolescent Relationships

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, represented by Hon’ble Siddharth, J., delivered a judgment on 19th July 2023, granting bail to an accused in a case involving allegations of rape, penetrative sexual assault, and conspiracy under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

The case titled “Sameer vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others” saw the applicant, Sameer, seeking bail under Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26824 of 2023. The victim, aged about 16-17 years, had alleged that she was subjected to the offense of rape in a hotel. However, the defense contended that the relationship between the victim and the accused was consensual.

In a pivotal part of the judgment, the court acknowledged previous judgments emphasizing the importance of judiciously applying the POCSO Act in cases involving adolescents and teenagers in romantic relationships. The court adopted a “bio-social approach” to understand the psychology and relationships of young individuals.

High court stated, “It is crucial to accept the science and psychology of an adolescent and young adulthood... their decision could be impulsive, immature but certainly not sinful or tainted as branded in the F.I.R. or complaint of the informant.”

Drawing upon these principles, the court held that the applicant deserved bail, taking into consideration the uncertainty surrounding the conclusion of the trial, one-sided investigation by the police, and the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court imposed conditions to ensure non-tampering of evidence and attendance at court hearings and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

The judgment has sparked a debate on the application of the POCSO Act and its impact on adolescents involved in romantic relationships. Legal experts lauded the court’s approach to consider the psychological aspects of young individuals and warned against hasty application of the Act in such cases.

This landmark judgment serves as a reminder to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to carefully evaluate the circumstances of each case, particularly when dealing with adolescent relationships. As the legal community applauds the High Court’s decision, the case sets a precedent for a nuanced and empathetic interpretation of the law concerning young individuals involved in consensual relationships.

Date of Decision: 19th July 2023

Sameer vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others

Latest Legal News