In a significant ruling that highlighted a gap between legal statute and social practice, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man who was married to a minor girl, with whom he also has a child. The court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Kainthla, observed that the case exposed a "harsh social reality" and did not fall within the intended spirit of the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012.
The Court's Rationale and 'Harsh Social Reality'
Delivering the order on December 9, Justice Kainthla noted that the couple's relationship, which resulted in the birth of a child, was born out of "love and not lust." The court emphasized that the minor victim herself expressed a desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the petitioner. Granting bail, the bench stated that the man's continuous detention would disrupt the family unit and cause irreparable hardship to the victim, their child, and the broader social fabric.
"The present case does not fall within the spirit of the POCSO Act, but exposes a harsh social reality, where minor married couples are exposed to the POCSO because of their lack of knowledge," the High Court held. This observation underscores the complex scenarios where adolescent relationships and customary practices intersect with rigid legal provisions designed to protect children from sexual exploitation.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The legal trouble for the man began when an FIR was registered on May 22 at the instance of healthcare workers and a child helpline. He was booked under relevant sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. Following the complaint, the police arrested him on May 25. A chargesheet was subsequently filed before the trial court on July 18.
The petitioner then moved the High Court for bail, pleading innocence and claiming he was framed. He argued that he had no criminal record and that the investigation in the case was complete, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody.
Victim's Stance and Court's Conditions for Bail
A crucial factor in the court's decision was the stance of the minor girl. The court took note of her submission, where she confirmed she was married to the petitioner and they had a child together. She did not oppose the bail petition and had no objection if it was allowed.
The prosecution had opposed bail, apprehensive that the accused might intimidate witnesses. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that such fears could be allayed by imposing strict conditions. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to several conditions, including:
- Furnishing bail bonds of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the same amount.
- Directing him to attend the trial court on every hearing date.
- Not leaving his present address for more than seven days without informing the local police and the trial court about his intended destination.
This ruling brings to the fore the ongoing judicial discourse on applying the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual relationships among adolescents, especially within the context of marriage, prompting a need for nuanced legal examination.
