Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case

Teenagers in Love Relationships Cannot Be Treated as Criminals in the Absence of Force, In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court granted bail to an accused facing charges under the POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC, emphasizing that "consensual teenage relationships must not be equated with sexual offenses in the absence of coercion or force."

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while deciding the bail application of Mohammed Ajaan Khan in BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4621 OF 2024, observed, "It is prima facie seen that the prosecutrix, though a minor at the time of the alleged incidents, was in a relationship with the applicant for over two years. Her statements before the Medical Officer and other records clearly indicate that the relationship was voluntary and continued for 15 months. There is no material on record to suggest coercion, violence, or exploitation."

The prosecutrix, aged 16 at the time of filing the FIR, had accused the applicant of repeated sexual assault over 15 months, resulting in two pregnancies and medical terminations. However, the Court noted that she had continued to visit the applicant’s house voluntarily and had not disclosed any forceful actions until much later.

"Delay in FIR and Contradictions in Statements Suggest Retrospective Criminalization"
The defense, represented by Advocate Viral Mukte, contended that the FIR was an attempt to criminalize a long-standing consensual relationship. He argued, "The prosecutrix remained silent for over a year and three months after the alleged first incident. Even her mother, despite being aware of the first pregnancy and the subsequent medical termination, did not report it to the authorities. Instead, she sent the prosecutrix to an acquaintance for care."

The Court found merit in this argument, stating, "Delay in lodging an FIR, though not always a decisive factor, becomes relevant when coupled with contradictions in the prosecutrix’s statements. While the FIR alleges coercion, her medical records, particularly her statement at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s Department of Psychiatry, indicate that she admitted to consensual intercourse on multiple occasions."

"Age and Willing Participation Are Crucial Considerations in Bail Applications"
The Court extensively referred to S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942) and Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra (BA No. 1036 of 2015), emphasizing the evolving nature of teenage relationships. Justice Jadhav observed, "Courts must recognize the psychological and social realities of adolescent relationships. It is not uncommon for young individuals to engage in consensual acts, which should not be viewed as abuse per se unless coercion is evident."

In Sunil Mahadev Patil, the Bombay High Court had held that "if a girl is a minor between 15 to 18 years and her consent is evident, then it is a mitigating circumstance, especially at the stage of bail." The present Court echoed similar sentiments, stating, "To continue the incarceration of the applicant, there must be clear evidence of coercion. The record instead suggests a consensual relationship, acknowledged by both parties."

"Bail Should Not Be Used as Pretrial Punishment in Consensual Relationship Cases"
Justice Jadhav underscored the fundamental principles of bail jurisprudence, remarking, "The primary purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused at trial, not to impose pretrial punishment. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, and no material suggests that he poses a threat to the prosecutrix or the investigation."

The Court also addressed concerns regarding the applicant’s influence over the prosecutrix, noting, "Multiple decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have favored the release of young offenders on bail in cases involving consensual relationships, to prevent exposure to the regressive influences of jail."

"Court Sets Conditions for Bail, Emphasizing Compliance with Trial Process"
While granting bail, the Court made it clear that the applicant must strictly comply with conditions that ensure his participation in the trial. It warned, "Any attempt to contact the prosecutrix, influence witnesses, or evade the trial process will entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail."

The ruling highlights the judiciary’s evolving approach to cases under the POCSO Act where consensual relationships are involved, recognizing the need for a balance between the protection of minors and preventing the misuse of stringent legal provisions.

Date of Decision: February 13, 2025