X vs Y, 2026

An FIR was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix alleging that the applicant had sexually assaulted her minor daughter.

Pursuant to the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act read with Sections 65(1) and 88 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The applicant contended that at the time of the alleged incident he was 23 years old and the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age.

It was argued that the applicant and the prosecutrix shared a friendship and were involved in a consensual romantic relationship.

The applicant relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix, which allegedly supported the contention that the physical relationship was consensual.

The applicant further submitted that both the complainant and the prosecutrix had already been examined as prosecution witnesses.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 08.07.2025.

Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Varun Kumar Singh v. State, wherein a liberal approach in bail matters involving romantic adolescent relationships was considered.

The State opposed the bail application and sought continuation of custody.

The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the bail application filed by the accused.

The Court observed that although the POCSO Act contains stringent provisions, such rigour does not completely bar the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail.

The Court took note of the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein she stated that she liked the applicant and that physical relations had occurred with her consent.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix, though legally a minor under the POCSO Act, appeared to possess sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment regarding the nature and consequences of her actions.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the applicant.

The judgment emphasized that courts may adopt a liberal approach in bail matters involving young offenders and consensual adolescent relationships.

The Court highlighted the importance of preventing the adverse and regressive effects of prolonged incarceration upon young individuals.

Reliance was placed on established judicial principles and precedents recognizing the best interest principle while deciding bail in similar circumstances.

Considering the consensual nature of the relationship, the friendship between the parties, the evidence already recorded, and the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the Court held that it was a fit case for grant of bail.

The judgment reflects a balanced approach between the strict statutory framework of the POCSO Act and the constitutional principles governing personal liberty and bail.

The Court acknowledged the legal fiction under POCSO that a minor cannot legally consent, yet pragmatically considered the factual matrix while deciding bail.

The decision demonstrates judicial sensitivity toward consensual adolescent relationships that are increasingly criminalised under strict statutory provisions.

By emphasizing the prosecutrix’s maturity and understanding, the Court indirectly distinguished exploitative sexual conduct from consensual romantic involvement among young individuals.

The ruling reinforces the principle that bail jurisprudence must remain individualized and fact-specific, even in stringent statutory offences.

The Court’s reliance on the best interest principle signifies a reformative and rehabilitative outlook rather than a purely punitive approach.

The judgment contributes to the evolving jurisprudence where courts seek to prevent misuse or overextension of POCSO provisions in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents and young adults.

At the same time, the decision carefully confines its observations to the stage of bail and does not dilute the statutory protections available to minors under the POCSO Act.

The ruling may influence future bail applications involving consensual adolescent relationships by encouraging courts to consider the surrounding factual circumstances more closely.