Court emphasizes statutory protection for minors, rejects bail plea despite applicant's proposal to marry the victim.
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has rejected the bail application of Tahjim Ansari, also known as Arman or Annu, in a case involving charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The decision, delivered by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, underscores the legal principle that a minor's consent is invalid and highlights the seriousness of allegations involving concealment of religious identity.
The case originated from a First Information Report lodged by Gyan Singh on June 28, 2025, after his daughter went missing. The investigation revealed that the victim, a minor at the time, was in a relationship with the accused, who had allegedly concealed his religious identity. The victim's statement indicated that she was unaware of the accused's Muslim background and that he had engaged in sexual relations with her, leading to her pregnancy.
During the court proceedings, the defense argued for the applicant's innocence, highlighting a romantic relationship between the accused and the victim and expressing the applicant's willingness to marry her. The defense further contended that the victim was aware of the applicant's religion and questioned the timing of the FIR, suggesting it was lodged to implicate the accused falsely.
However, the court, considering the medical evidence and school records, determined the victim was indeed a minor when the alleged offenses occurred. Justice Thapliyal emphasized that under the POCSO Act, a minor's consent is irrelevant, and the alleged concealment of religious identity added to the gravity of the offense. The court noted that the statutory protection granted to minors under the POCSO Act could not be diluted by claims of a romantic relationship or a marriage proposal.
The court's decision to deny bail was influenced by the severity of the charges and the need to uphold the legal protections for minors. The prosecution's argument, highlighting the victim's and her family's opposition to the marriage proposal and their desire for strict legal action, further reinforced the court's ruling.
This judgment reiterates the judiciary's firm stance on protecting minors and ensuring that legal safeguards are not undermined by personal relationships or promises of marriage. The court's decision will not affect the ongoing trial, which will proceed on its merits.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under POCSO Act rejected - Consent of a minor is legally invalid, and allegations of concealment of religious identity aggravate the gravity of the offense.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 5(l), 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Sections 137(2), 96 read with Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
