Victim’s Majority and Consensual Relationship Prima Facie Established: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case

Gram Panchayat Certificate Cannot Be Relied Upon in Absence of School Certificate - Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a 20-year-old petitioner accused of offenses under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court’s decision was based on new evidence, including statements by the victim and her mother, claiming that the victim was major at the time of the incident and that the relationship was consensual.

In its judgment, the Court observed: "There is no reasonable ground to believe that the victim is a minor and the petitioner is involved in the commission of offenses punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Hence, further detention of the petitioner is not justified."

The case originated from FIR No. 31/2023, registered on August 8, 2023, alleging that the petitioner repeatedly raped the victim, resulting in her pregnancy. The prosecution initially relied on a Gram Panchayat certificate indicating the victim’s date of birth as February 27, 2008, to establish her minority. A DNA analysis confirmed that the petitioner was the biological father of the child.

However, during trial proceedings, both the victim and her mother testified that the victim was major at the time of the incident and that the relationship was consensual. This contradicted earlier claims and became the basis for the petitioner’s second bail application. Notably, the first bail application had been dismissed in June 2024.

The Court emphasized that, under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act, school certificates must be preferred over Gram Panchayat records for age determination. Since the prosecution failed to produce a school certificate despite the victim being a student in Class X, the Gram Panchayat certificate’s reliability was questioned. The Court noted:
"In the absence of a school certificate, the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat will lose its significance when the victim and her mother claimed that the victim was major on the date of the incident."

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao [(1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605], the Court reiterated that successive bail applications are permissible only if there is a material change in circumstances. In this case, the new testimonies of the victim and her mother constituted a significant change, warranting reconsideration of bail.

The Court applied the parameters outlined in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271), including the nature of accusations, the evidence, and the gravity of the offense. It concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish reasonable grounds for the petitioner’s continued detention.

The Court ruled that the petitioner’s detention was unwarranted in light of the new evidence. It granted bail subject to conditions to ensure trial integrity, including furnishing bail bonds of ₹50,000/-, not intimidating witnesses, attending trial without unnecessary adjournments, and informing authorities of any prolonged absence.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the disposal of the bail petition and would not influence the trial’s outcome. It also noted that if the petitioner violated bail conditions, the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision sets an important precedent in cases involving disputed age under the POCSO Act. By prioritizing school certificates over Gram Panchayat records and emphasizing the significance of material changes in successive bail applications, the judgment underscores the importance of a fair and evidence-based approach in determining bail.

Date of Decision: December 27, 2024