Minor Victim Had Sufficient Knowledge & Capacity; Had A Consensual Encounter With Accused: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused

The Court allowed the Bail Application of an accused under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. “Multiple decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other Courts have favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial so that the regressive influences of jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind the principle of best interest in the aforesaid circumstances,” the Court noted.

A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav held, “The conduct of the prosecution in this case is indicative of the fact that she left her home without informing her parents by her own will and also stayed with Applicant for 4 days. No doubt that the prosecutrix under the purview of POCSO Act is a minor, however the facts of the present case indicate that she had sufficient knowledge and capacity to know the full import of her actions and what she was doing and had only thereafter voluntarily joined and stayed with the Applicant for 4 days.”

Advocate Prem Kumar Pandey represented the Applicant, while Advocate Manisha Arjun Devkar appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The FIR was lodged by the victim’s father, alleging that his 14-year-old daughter had gone missing for six days. She was later found with the accused near Juhu Chowpatty, following which the accused was arrested and remained in custody for over five years.

During the trial proceedings, discrepancies emerged in the victim’s statements. While the FIR indicated abduction, the victim later admitted that she had voluntarily left home and spent time with the accused. The medical examination report also suggested a consensual relationship, although the victim was a minor. The Court noted that the victim and the accused had known each other for two years prior to the incident and had a relationship.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court referred to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Sunil Mahadev Patil v. the State of Maharashtra (2015), wherein the following considerations were summed up:

“When a boy and a minor girl are in love with each other and chose to live together without consent of their parents, then the following factors are to be considered: (i) What is the age of the prosecutrix, who is minor. (ii) Whether the act is violent or not. (iii) Whether there are antecedents or not. (iv) Whether the offender is capable of repeating Act or not. (v) Whether there is likelihood of threats or intimidation, if at all the boy is released. (vi) Whether any chance of tempering with the material witnesses when their statements are recorded. (vii) It is also to be taken into account in such cases that a boy in his early 20’s deserves to get employment and to plan, stabilize and secure his future.”

The Bench noted, “Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is seen that victim has left her parents’ house without informing the parents and has stayed with Applicant for 3 days and 3 nights as also she has confessed that she was in love with the Applicant and travelled alongwith him to different places and had a consensual encounter.”

The Court also clarified that the provisions of POCSO Act are, though, stringent in nature, would not deter the Court to grant or refuse bail in order to secure the ends of justice.

Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above observations and facts delineated herein above the Applicant before me is entitled for bail. Bail Application is allowed.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application.

Cause Title: Vijay Chand Dubey v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:7845)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Prem Kumar Pandey, Pavan Kumar Pande, Sneha Mishra and Kajal Mishra

Respondents: Advocate Manisha Arjun Devkar

Click here to read/download the Order