Meghalaya High Court grants bail to 24-year-old youth in POCSO case, cites ‘romantic relation’

Siting the top court judgement, the court added that an adolescent boy and girl who are in the grips of their hormones and biological changes and whose decision-making ability is yet to fully develop should essentially receive the support and guidance of their parents and the society at large.

Case

The FIR was registered against the petitioner in October 2025, under Sections 3(a) (penetrative sexual assault) and 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, following a complaint by the father of a 17-year-old minor. The father alleged that the petitioner was involved in a sexual relationship with the minor daughter.

A 24-year-old student filed a bail application after he was arrested on October 10, 2025.

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minor daughter of the complainant was in a romantic relationship, in which they had engaged in a sexual relationship.

The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that this being the case, there is no question of actual sexual assault committed against the minor daughter of the appellant, the same being consensual in nature.

Opposing the bail, the state argued that there is no question of default bail despite the charge sheet not having been filed to date, since the offence involved a punishment of seven years or more, which would indicate that the period of investigation in such cases would be stretched to 90 days, the said period not having been completed in this case.

Decision

Referring to the apex court’s judgment, the high court said these incidents should never be perceived from an adult’s point of view, and such an understanding will, in fact, lead to a lack of empathy.

The court further extended the apex court’s observation and said that an adolescent boy who is sent to prison in a case of this nature will be persecuted throughout his life.

The court directed that the petitioner shall not come into contact with the survivor in
course of trial, only if so required or directed by the court, and he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the state, except with due permission of the court concerned.