The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling on bail under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that documentary evidence proving the prosecutrix's majority overrides the statutory presumption that her consent is immaterial. The judgment underscores the weight of official documents like marriage certificates and educational certificates in bail considerations, even in offences involving minors.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Abhishek Meena, was accused in FIR/Crime No. 82/2026 registered at Police Station Obedullaganj, District Raisen, Madhya Pradesh, for offences under Sections 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the prosecutrix was under 18 years of age, rendering her consent immaterial under the POCSO Act.
Key Facts
- The applicant and the prosecutrix were married on 24.03.2026 before the Jan Bhagidari Samiti, Paramhans Ghat, Narmadapuram, as per Hindu rituals.
- The marriage was registered, and a Vivah Anushthan Patra and marriage certificate were issued by the Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
- The Class-X marksheet cum certificate of the Board of Secondary Education indicated the prosecutrix's date of birth as 15.05.2006, establishing her as a major at the time of the alleged offence.
- The applicant was taken into custody on 31.03.2026 and filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the BNS.
Procedural History
- 31.03.2026: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- 04.05.2026: Bail application (MCRC No. 16982 of 2026) filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- Argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and is innocent.
- Submitted that the prosecutrix is his lawfully wedded wife, and they are living as husband and wife.
- Relied on the marriage certificate and Class-X marksheet to prove the prosecutrix's majority, thereby negating the applicability of the POCSO Act.
For the Respondent/State
- Opposed the bail application on the ground that the prosecutrix was under 18 years of age, making her consent immaterial under the POCSO Act.
- Contended that the statutory provisions of the POCSO Act override any documentary evidence of marriage or age.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on regular bail, furnishing a personal bond and surety as directed by the court.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether documentary evidence - such as a marriage certificate and educational certificate proving majority - can override the statutory presumption under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act that the consent of a minor is immaterial, thereby justifying the grant of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant's counsel relied on the marriage certificate and Class-X marksheet to establish that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the alleged offence.
- Argued that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rituals and registered with the government, lending legal validity to the union.
- Contended that the prosecutrix's majority negates the applicability of the POCSO Act, as the statute is designed to protect minors.
For the Respondent/State
- The State opposed the bail application, emphasizing that the prosecutrix was a minor, rendering her consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act.
- Relied on the statutory framework of the POCSO Act, which presumes that any sexual act with a minor is an offence, irrespective of consent.
The Court's Analysis
The court examined the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant, particularly the marriage certificate and the Class-X marksheet, which indicated the prosecutrix's date of birth as 15.05.2006. The court noted that these documents established the prosecutrix's majority at the time of the alleged offence.
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the marriage certificate issued by the Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics, Government of Madhya Pradesh, which reveals that the applicant and the prosecutrix were married on 24.03.2026 at Narmadapuram and marksheet cum certificate of Board of Secondary Education shows that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.05.2006. Therefore, it is appropriate to release the applicant on bail."
The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but held that the documentary evidence was sufficient to justify the grant of bail. The judgment underscores the importance of official records in bail considerations, even in cases involving stringent statutes like the POCSO Act.
The Verdict
The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant was further directed to comply with Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) during the pendency of the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence Trumps Statutory Presumptions
- Courts may consider official documents like marriage certificates and educational certificates to determine the age of the prosecutrix, even in cases under stringent statutes like the POCSO Act.
- Practitioners should emphasize documentary proof of majority to counter the statutory presumption of immaterial consent under the POCSO Act.
Bail Considerations in POCSO Cases
- The judgment establishes that bail is not automatically denied in POCSO cases if the prosecutrix's majority is proven through reliable documents.
- The court's approach suggests a balancing act between statutory protections for minors and the rights of the accused, particularly when documentary evidence contradicts the prosecution's claims.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- The applicant was directed to comply with Section 480(3) of the BNSS, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural requirements even after bail is granted.
- Practitioners must ensure that bail conditions are strictly followed to avoid revocation or further legal complications.
