‘Consent of a minor irrelevant’: Punjab and Haryana HC rejects anticipatory bail in Pocso case
Punjab and Haryana High Court says litigants cannot be allowed to “play hide and seek with the law” by lodging serious allegations and then resiling from them at will.
The Punjab and Haryana HC was hearing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail (File photo). The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail filed by a 19-year-old accused in a case involving allegations of sexual assault of a minor, observing that serious charges cannot be diluted by later affidavits or claims of consent.
Justice Alok Jain passed the order on January 16 while hearing a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered at a police station in the SBS Nagar district. The case was lodged under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act.
Appearing for the accused, advocate Manbir Singh Batth argued that the prosecutrix was 15 years old but was mature and aware of her actions. He submitted that the relationship was consensual and claimed that the FIR itself was flawed, as the petitioner was allegedly present in school at the time of the incident. Reliance was placed on the petitioner’s school attendance certificate. It was also argued that the complainant later filed an affidavit stating that the FIR had been lodged under a mistaken belief and that the accused was innocent.
Additional Advocate General Japjot Singh, who represented the Punjab Government, opposed the plea.
Rejecting the defence, the court noted that the prosecutrix had maintained the allegations in her statement recorded before the trial court, even though the complainant later submitted an affidavit taking a contrary stand. The judge described this conduct as troubling and said such matters require thorough investigation.
Court to assess truth of allegations
Justice Jain observed that litigants cannot be allowed to “play hide and seek with the law” by lodging serious allegations and then resiling from them at will. The court said citizens have no authority to declare a person innocent once an FIR is registered, as it is for the court to assess the truth of the allegations.
The court also cautioned that if the FIR is found to be false, action could be taken against the complainant, and if the affidavit is false, consequences would follow for misleading the court.
On the question of consent, the judge reiterated that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant. He held that claims of a consensual relationship, chats or photographs would not alter the legal position, particularly when the victim was only 15 years old at the time of the alleged incident.
The court further noted that minor discrepancies in the timing mentioned in the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution’s case. Emphasising the importance of custodial interrogation, Justice Jain said it could not be ruled out that the later affidavit had been filed under pressure or coercion.
“In light of the above, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be of much importance,” the court held, before dismissing the anticipatory bail petition.
Share
