Latest News
Back
Document:
POCSO not meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationship between young adults: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held in the present case of AK vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi And Anr, BAIL APPLN. 2729/2022 that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act,2012 (POCSO) is intended to protect children under the age of 18 from sexual exploitation and romantic relationship that are consensual among young people were never intended to criminalise, A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh, listed widespread penetrated sexual assault (Section 6) and abetting an offence (Section 17) under POSCO Act; kidnapping (Section 363) and rape (Section 376) under Indian Penal Code,1860.
According to facts, on June 30, 2021, a 17-year-old girl married a man, but she didn't want to be with him. October 2021. She went to Punjab where she was the accused. Her father filed an FIR against the accused, the defendant. The girl had previously approached Punjab Haryana High Court seeking protection from her parents. The defendant has been in custody since December 31, 2021. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had ordered the couple to be given proper police protection.
The High Court subsequently ruled that this was not a case of the girl being "forced into an affair" with the defendant. She went to the defendant's house and asked him to marry her. Justice Singh said POCSO intended to protect children under 18 from sexual exploitation. It is not intended to criminalize romantic relationships that are consented to by young adults. However, this can be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. Sexual assault survivors may be forced to settle under pressure and trauma in some cases. Ignoring the victim’s testimony and plaguing the defendant in prison, is tantamount,t to bending the law. The court also noted that it was aware that his previous proceedings were about granting bail and not about nullifying the FIR. Also, this is not a case where the defendant's part would be assumed crystal clear.
The Court referred to the case of Dharmender Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT), BAIL APPL. 1559/2020 in which bail was granted to the defendant in light of the possible mutual physical relationship between the defendant and the minor victim. It also defines the parameters to follow when considering bail under POSCO Act. Therefore, the judge awarded the accused man bail along with a personal and surety bond of Rs.10,000/- each and dismissed the application.
The Delhi High Court held in the present case of AK vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi And Anr, BAIL APPLN. 2729/2022 that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act,2012 (POCSO) is intended to protect children under the age of 18 from sexual exploitation and romantic relationship that are consensual among young people were never intended to criminalise, A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh, listed widespread penetrated sexual assault (Section 6) and abetting an offence (Section 17) under POSCO Act; kidnapping (Section 363) and rape (Section 376) under Indian Penal Code,1860.
According to facts, on June 30, 2021, a 17-year-old girl married a man, but she didn't want to be with him. October 2021. She went to Punjab where she was the accused. Her father filed an FIR against the accused, the defendant. The girl had previously approached Punjab Haryana High Court seeking protection from her parents. The defendant has been in custody since December 31, 2021. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana had ordered the couple to be given proper police protection.
The High Court subsequently ruled that this was not a case of the girl being "forced into an affair" with the defendant. She went to the defendant's house and asked him to marry her. Justice Singh said POCSO intended to protect children under 18 from sexual exploitation. It is not intended to criminalize romantic relationships that are consented to by young adults. However, this can be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. Sexual assault survivors may be forced to settle under pressure and trauma in some cases. Ignoring the victim’s testimony and plaguing the defendant in prison is equivalent to bending the law. The court also noted that it was aware that his previous proceedings were about granting bail and not about nullifying the FIR. Also, this is not a case where the defendant's part would be assumed crystal clear.
The Court referred to the case of Dharmender Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT), BAIL APPL. 1559/2020 in which bail was granted to the defendant in light of the possible mutual physical relationship between the defendant and the minor victim. It also defines the parameters to follow when considering bail under POSCO Act. Therefore, the judge awarded the accused man bail along with a personal and surety bond of Rs.10,000/- each and dismissed the application.
Document:
