POCSO Act Has Become A Tool of Exploitation: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to 18-year-old young man, who was arrested under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly engaging in a consensual relationship with a minor girl.

Court observed that the POCSO Act, while designed to protect children from exploitation, is increasingly being misused to target adolescent relationships.

The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed, "The POCSO Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Nowadays more often than not it has become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between adolescents".

However, the bench stressed that it has to be seen from the facts and circumstances of each case. "The fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity of justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer behind jail", it emphasised.

Court, while hearing the bail plea, took note of several mitigating factors. The FIR, which was registered nearly 15 days after the alleged incident, lacked any explanation for the delay. Moreover, the court noted the absence of any medical evidence to support the prosecution’s claims.

Court pointed out that ignoring the victim’s own statements in such cases would amount to a "perversity of justice."

The case was registered at Police Station Chakiya in Chandauli district under Sections 137(2), 87, and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The academic record of the girl showed her to be slightly under 16, while the applicant was around 18 years of age. The defence argued that the two were in a consensual relationship and that the applicant had no prior criminal background. He had been in jail since March 7, 2025.

During the proceedings, the state government opposed the bail application, but the court underscored the need to differentiate between predatory abuse and consensual intimacy between teenagers.

Considering the lack of prompt reporting, absence of medical corroboration, and the young age of both parties, the court allowed the bail plea without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Raj Sonkar vs State of UP and 3 Others

Download judgment here