The Allahabad High Court has raised significant concerns regarding the growing misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in cases involving consensual romantic relationships between adolescents. Justice Krishan Pahal, while granting bail to an 18-year-old accused, underscored that the legislation was designed to safeguard children from sexual abuse—not to criminalize consensual acts among teenagers.
Justice Pahal, in his order, observed:
“The Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which was enacted to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation, has now become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.”
The court was hearing the bail application of Raj Sonkar, an 18-year-old who had been arrested in March under the POCSO Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), on allegations of raping a 16-year-old girl. The defence submitted that the relationship was consensual, and no medical evidence substantiated the charge of rape. It was also argued that there was an unexplained 15-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and the accused had no prior criminal record.
Justice Pahal emphasised the need for judicial sensitivity in such matters and warned against sidelining the victim’s version. He stated:
“It would amount to the perversity of justice if the statement of the victim was ignored and the accused was left to suffer in jail.”
Key Observations by the Court:
- The romantic relationship appeared to be consensual in nature.
- There was no medical evidence indicating sexual assault.
- The FIR was lodged with a delay of over two weeks.
- The accused had a clean antecedent and no prior criminal involvement.
After evaluating these factors, the court granted bail to the accused on April 29. It clarified that the bail order was based on the facts relevant to the bail stage and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
Case Title: Raj Sonkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
