14 Y/O Girl Had 'Sufficient Knowledge & Capacity' To Understand Her Actions: Bombay HC Grants Bail To POCSO Accused

Post By 24law
February 21, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a 24-year-old man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that the 14-year-old victim had "sufficient knowledge and capacity to know the full import of her actions." The Court noted that the girl voluntarily stayed with the accused for four days and that her statements indicated a consensual relationship.

Case Background

The accused, Vijay Chand Dubey, was arrested in November 2019 in connection with Crime No. 551 of 2019 registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. He was booked under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The victim’s father, who lodged the FIR, alleged that his 14-year-old daughter had gone missing and was later found with the accused at Juhu Chowpatti after four days.

Court’s Observations

A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while granting bail, highlighted key aspects of the case, particularly the victim’s statements. The Court noted:

"The conduct of the prosecution in this case is indicative of the fact that she left her home without informing her parents by her own will and also stayed with the Applicant for 4 days. No doubt that the prosecutrix under the purview of POCSO Act is a minor, however, the facts of the present case indicate that she had sufficient knowledge and capacity to know the full import of her actions and what she was doing and had only thereafter voluntarily joined and stayed with the Applicant for 4 days."

The victim, in her statements, admitted that she had been in a relationship with the accused for two years before the incident and that she willingly accompanied him.

The medical report appended to the case confirmed that she had narrated details of her consensual relationship with the accused.

The Court found discrepancies between the victim’s father’s FIR and the victim’s own statements, raising doubts about the allegations of force or coercion.

Reliance on Precedents

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 942), which held that if a minor voluntarily leaves her guardian’s custody with the capacity to understand her actions, it cannot be considered as "taking away" by the accused. Additionally, the Court cited the Bombay High Court’s decision in Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No. 1036 of 2015), which emphasized the importance of considering a minor’s consent as a mitigating factor. The judgment stressed that cases involving young offenders should be viewed pragmatically, given the evolving societal norms and understanding of adolescent behavior.

Consideration of Bail Factors

The Court took into account multiple factors while deciding on bail:

The accused had already spent more than 5 years, 2 months, and 23 days in custody.

There were no allegations of violence in the act.

The accused had no prior criminal record.

The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration at a young age can expose an offender to the regressive influences of jail, affecting their future prospects.

The Court reiterated, "Multiple decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other Courts have favoured the release of young offenders on bail pending trial so that the regressive influences of jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind the principle of best interest in the circumstances of a particular case."

Bail Conditions

The Court granted bail to the accused under the following conditions:

He must furnish a personal bond of ₹15,000 with one or two sureties.

He must report to the investigating officer once every month for the first three months and as required thereafter.

He is prohibited from leaving Maharashtra without prior permission.

He must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

He must keep the investigating officer informed of any change in residence or contact details.

This judgment emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances of individual cases, particularly when dealing with young offenders and minor victims under the POCSO Act. While the law remains stringent in protecting minors from sexual offences, the Court’s observations indicate a nuanced approach in cases where the minor demonstrates awareness and willingness in their actions.