Recently, the Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is meant to protect minor children from sexual exploitation and not to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young adults.

“In my opinion, the intention of POCSO was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. It was never meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between young adults. However, this has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. There might be cases where the survivor of a sexual offence, may under pressure or trauma be forced to settle,” the Court said.

The observations were made by the bench while granting bail to a man charged with the provisions of POCSO Act as well as Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It was alleged that a minor girl aged around 17 years had married a man in June 2021. Four months later, she came to the house of the applicant and married him.

As the judge interacted with the girl in his chamber, she told him that she had married the applicant out of her own free will and without any coercion.

She further said that she wants to stay with the applicant.

After due consideration, Justice Singh held that it was not a case where the girl was coerced into a relationship with the boy.

“In fact, Ms ‘A’, herself went to the applicant’s house and asked him to marry her. The statement of the victim makes it clear that this is a romantic relationship between the two and that the sexual act involved between them was consensual.”

The Court said that though the victim, in this case, is minor and hence her consent does not have any legal bearing, but the factum of a consensual relationship borne out of love should be considered while granting bail.

“To ignore the statement of the victim and let the accused suffer behind the jail, in the present case, would otherwise amount to the perversity of justice,” the Court said.

The judge further said that the present proceedings are with respect to granting of bail and not for quashing the first information report (FIR) and, therefore, it is not a case where the slate of the applicant is wiped clear.

“In the circumstances of the present case, the applicant is entitled to bail for the reasons enumerated above,” the Court ordered.