The Uttarakhand High Court has denied bail to the accused in a case involving alleged sexual assault of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The bench, presided over by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, heard the first bail application filed by the accused and observed that the medical evidence and school records prima-facie establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The Court emphasized that since the accused is charged under the POCSO Act, the minor’s consent is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
The Court further held that the plea of a romantic relationship and a subsequent proposal to marry cannot dilute the statutory protection granted to a minor child under the POCSO Act. This observation was made while considering the rival submissions of counsel for the parties. The prosecution had alleged that the accused, identified as a painter by profession, had concealed his religious identity—being a member of the Muslim community—to gain the trust of the minor victim. According to the victim’s statement, she had known the accused since 2024 and communicated with him through Instagram. In March 2024, he allegedly took her to a jungle under the pretext of an outing, forcibly established physical relations, and threatened her not to disclose the incident. The prosecution also stated that the accused subsequently took her to various locations, including hotels.
The victim became pregnant and delivered a baby on October 15, 2025. Her blood sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA matching. The FIR was initially lodged on June 28, 2025, regarding the victim’s disappearance. During investigation, the accused’s name emerged, and the missing report was converted into a regular FIR. The victim was recovered along with the accused at the Rishikesh railway platform.
The defence argued that the accused was innocent and falsely implicated, claiming his name did not appear in the original FIR and that he was chargesheeted only on suspicion. It was contended that the mention of the March 2024 incident in the victim’s statement, despite the FIR being lodged later, indicated that the incident was deliberately introduced to fabricate a case under the POCSO Act. Regarding age, the defence submitted that the victim was 19 years old on June 27, 2025, and even if the March 2024 incident was considered, she was approximately 17 years and nine months old based on her school certificate, creating doubt about her minority. It was also claimed that the FIR was a false and concocted version lodged by the victim’s father after learning she was six months pregnant.
The defence further submitted that the accused harboured deep affection for the victim and was willing to marry her to legitimize the relationship and secure the future of the child born from their physical relations.
The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the victim was a school-going minor whose consent held no validity under the law. It was stated that the accused had intentionally suppressed his religious identity to trap the minor, resulting in her pregnancy. The State informed the Court that the victim and her parents were completely opposed to any marriage proposal and wanted strict action against the accused. The State also relied on the medical report and the doctor’s statement to affirm that the minor victim had been sexually assaulted by the accused. Considering the nature of the offence and the allegation concerning the concealment of religious identity, the State argued that the accused did not deserve bail.
After hearing the arguments, the Court held that the medical evidence and school records prima-facie establish the victim’s minority at the time of the alleged incident. The Court reiterated that under the POCSO Act, a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant, and a plea of romantic relationship or intention to marry cannot override the statutory protection meant for children. Consequently, bail was denied to the accused.