In a significant ruling that underscores the nuanced application of child protection laws in cases of adolescent relationships, the Meghalaya High Court has granted bail to a 24-year-old man accused under the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court's decision, delivered by Justice W. Diengdoh, heavily relied on a Supreme Court judgment, observing that the primary objective of the POCSO Act was never to punish an adolescent boy involved in a consensual relationship with a minor girl.
The Case and the Allegations
The legal proceedings stemmed from an FIR registered in October 2025 based on a complaint by the father of a 17-year-old girl. The petitioner, a 24-year-old student, was arrested on October 10, 2025, under Sections 3(a) (penetrative sexual assault) and 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. The father alleged that the accused was in a sexual relationship with his minor daughter.
However, during the bail hearing, the counsel for the petitioner presented a different narrative. It was submitted that the minor girl and the accused were in a "romantic relationship" and that any physical intimacy was consensual. The girl's own statement reportedly identified the accused as her boyfriend, forming a crucial part of the defense's argument that no sexual assault, in the conventional sense, had occurred.
Court's Reasoning and Supreme Court Precedent
Justice Diengdoh, while considering the bail plea, placed substantial emphasis on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Vijayalakshmi & Anr versus State. The High Court reiterated the apex court's view that punishing an adolescent boy for entering into a relationship with a minor girl was never the objective of the POCSO legislation.
The order elaborated that adolescents, driven by biological changes and hormones, often have decision-making abilities that are not fully developed. In such scenarios, the court emphasized, they require guidance and support from family and society, rather than immediate criminal prosecution which could lead to lifelong persecution. The bench noted that viewing such incidents purely from an adult's perspective would demonstrate a lack of empathy for the complexities of adolescent behavior.
The Bail Conditions and Legal Implications
Granting bail to the accused, the Meghalaya High Court imposed specific conditions to ensure the integrity of the ongoing trial. The court directed that the petitioner shall not contact the survivor during the trial unless explicitly required or permitted by the court. Furthermore, he is barred from leaving the jurisdiction of the state without obtaining prior permission from the concerned court.
The state prosecution had opposed the bail, arguing that since the alleged offence carries a punishment of seven years or more, the investigation period could extend to 90 days, which had not yet lapsed. However, the court's interpretation of the consensual nature of the relationship and the Supreme Court's guiding principles took precedence in this decision.
This ruling adds to a growing body of judicial discourse that calls for a distinction between predatory sexual offences and consensual romantic relationships involving adolescents under the POCSO Act. It highlights the judiciary's role in applying the law with a measure of discretion and context, aiming to prevent the mechanical application of stringent statutes in cases that may warrant a more rehabilitative or restorative approach.
