Highlighting that the criminal justice system should not be weaponized to punish emotional intimacy between peers simply because it offends the sensibilities of others, the Orissa High Court has granted interim bail to a POCSO accused. The High Court noted that the allegations arose out of a consensual relationship between two individuals who are very close in age and shared a personal bond before the filing of the case.

The application before the Orissa High Court was filed by the Petitioner for the grant of interim bail for six months. The petitioner was in custody in connection with a case registered under sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 313, 323, 294, 417, 344, 506, 34 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Single Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi said, “The so-called Romeo and Juliet clauses recognized in various comparative jurisdictions acknowledge that not all technical violations of age-of-consent laws are criminal in intent or effect. Such provisions reflect a recognition that the spirit of the law is to protect vulnerable individuals and not to punish consensual peer relationships that may temporarily fall afoul of the age criteria.”

Advocate Kshirod Kumar Rout represented the Petitioner while ASC Pradipta Satpathy represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

A written complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging that the petitioner established physical relations with her since 2019 under the promise of marriage while she was a minor, leading to a pregnancy in 2020, which was allegedly terminated by the petitioner. Despite assurances from the petitioner’s family regarding marriage, the relationship continued, and another pregnancy occurred. It was further alleged that on another date, the petitioner forcibly engaged in sexual relations with the informant. Upon confrontation by her father, the petitioner and his family members allegedly abused, assaulted and issued threats.

Arguments

The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting the case was falsely foisted after he refused to marry the complainant, who was a minor at the time. It was further submitted that following the intervention of certain local gentry and well-wishers of both the Petitioner and the informant, the matter had been amicably resolved between the parties. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that he had undertaken to solemnize the marriage upon his release.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, mentioned that the matter required a more nuanced and contextual approach rather than a mere mechanical application of statutory provisions. “The allegations, though serious in their statutory framing, arise out of a consensual relationship between two individuals who are very close in age and shared a personal bond prior to the filing of the present case. While the statutory mandate under the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code aims to safeguard minors and deter sexual offences, judicial discretion must also take into account the evolving social realities where romantic relationships between adolescents or young adults often take form outside the rigid structures of marriage or parental approval”, it said.

The Bench also noted that the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a consensual relationship between adolescents, particularly where the age difference is minimal, cannot per se be construed as exploitative. The Court has also observed that in such circumstances, the accused cannot be said to have taken undue advantage of the prosecutrix.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the relationship in question did not prima facie exhibit characteristics of force, coercion, or exploitation and the petitioner had also showed his inclination towards marriage. Thus, the Bench directed that the Petitioner be released on interim bail for one month. The Court further asked the Petitioner to refrain from indulging himself in any criminal offence and tampering the evidence of the prosecution evidence in any manner.

Cause Title: Hamid Sha v. State of Odisha (BLAPL No.1805 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Kshirod Kumar Rout

Opposite Party: ASC Pradipta Satpathy

Click here to read/download Order


Orissa High CourtJustice S.K. Panigrahi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.