Court finds victim, now major, voluntarily with accused; directs departmental inquiry into police conduct and mandates safety measures for victim
In a significant judgment delivered on September 30, 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Division Bench) closed a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the production and liberty of her daughter, who was the victim in a pending Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case. The daughter had allegedly been taken away by the accused and his wife. However, upon production before the Court, the daughter stated that she had attained majority and had gone with the accused on her own volition, refusing to rejoin her parents.
The case involved a deeply troubling incident where the petitioner's elder daughter, then a minor studying in the 11th standard, became pregnant as a result of sexual exploitation by the fourth respondent, the accused in the POCSO case. The fourth respondent, approximately 45 years old and running a Sai Baba Temple near the petitioner's residence, had represented himself as a monk and induced the minor victim. The fifth respondent, his wife, was also implicated for abetment.
Following the registration of FIR and DNA confirmation of paternity, the accused was granted bail by the Court with strict conditions prohibiting inducement, threat, or promise to the victim. Despite this, the accused and his wife allegedly threatened the victim to not give evidence and took her into their custody. The mother's plea for police intervention led to a habeas corpus petition.
During proceedings, the victim was produced before the Court and asserted that she was born on December 31, 2007, and had reached the age of majority. She expressed her wish to live independently with the accused and not return to her parents. The Court found that her custody was not illegal under these circumstances.
However, the Court strongly reprimanded the conduct of the Special Sub-Inspector of Police who allowed the victim to go with the accused, despite knowing the accused's status in the POCSO case and the bail conditions imposed. The Court described this act as shocking and insensitive, highlighting that it amounted to a clear violation of bail conditions that specifically restrained the accused from influencing the victim.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry into the police handling of the matter and to take appropriate disciplinary action as per law. Furthermore, the Court mandated that the safety of the victim be ensured going forward. The prosecuting authority was also instructed to take cognizance of the violation of bail conditions by the accused and act accordingly.
This judgment underscores the delicate balance between respecting the autonomy of a victim who has attained majority and the critical responsibility of police and judicial authorities to safeguard victims of sexual offences, especially in sensitive POCSO cases. It also serves as a reminder for stringent adherence to bail conditions in such cases and the need for police sensitization on handling victims with utmost care.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus petition filed by mother seeking production of daughter, who was victim in a POCSO case, was closed when alleged detenue, having attained majority, stated before Court that she had gone on her own volition and was not in illegal detention - However, High Court strongly deprecated conduct of police officer in permitting POCSO victim to go with accused in said case and directed departmental enquiry, appropriate action and steps for victim's safety, besides directing prosecution to take note of violation of bail conditions by accused.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 5, 6, 16, 17; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 351(2); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
