The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that sexual intercourse without consent, even when orchestrated as part of a criminal conspiracy to extort money, constitutes rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused who was allegedly brought into a sexual relationship with a minor girl to facilitate financial extortion, emphasizing that the motive behind the act does not mitigate the gravity of the offence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from a horrific exploitation scheme targeting a 17-year-old girl, Nancy, who was lured, held captive, and forced into prostitution by Balinder and Pradeep Kyodak, a lawyer. To extort money from a third party, the accused, Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Sujama, was brought to a hotel and forced to engage in sexual intercourse with Nancy under threat of violence and false criminal accusations. The entire scheme was designed to extract Rs. 1.5 lakh from Praveen Kumar by fabricating a rape complaint against him.
Key Facts
- The victim, Nancy, is a minor aged 17 years at the time of the incident (born around 2007 - 2008)
- She was abandoned by her mother after her father’s death and lived with her aunt, from whom she ran away
- Balinder, a resident of Sind, met her in Jawahar Park, Kaithal, in mid-2023 and took her to R.N. Hotel, Kaithal
- She was repeatedly raped by Balinder and later forced into prostitution across multiple hotels
- Pradeep Kyodak, a lawyer (Mobile: 8222912960), joined the conspiracy, raped her multiple times, and threatened to sell her to Nepal if she complained
- To extort Rs. 1.5 lakh from Praveen Kumar, Balinder and Pradeep orchestrated a fake relationship between Nancy and Praveen
- Nancy was forced to sign a false rape complaint against Praveen Kumar in Pradeep’s chamber
- The complaint was lodged at Police Station Civil Line, Kaithal, on 21.02.2025
- Praveen Kumar was arrested on 28.04.2025 and has been in custody since then
- The FIR was registered under multiple statutes including Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(5) of the BNS, Section 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.02.2025
- As of the judgment date (12.03.2026), only 19 of 51 prosecution witnesses had been examined
Procedural History
- Mid-2023: Victim lured and taken to R.N. Hotel, Kaithal
- September 2024: Victim forced into sexual relationship with Praveen Kumar at RN Hotel
- 21.02.2025: FIR No. 41 registered at Police Station City Kaithal
- 21.02.2025: Statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
- 28.04.2025: Arrest of Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Sujama
- 20.12.2025: Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, dismissed bail application
- 12.03.2026: Present appeal heard and dismissed by Punjab & Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought bail on grounds of prolonged custody (over 10 months), incomplete trial (only 19 of 51 witnesses examined), and the argument that his involvement was coerced and instrumental to extortion rather than voluntary sexual assault.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 6 of the POCSO Act applies when sexual intercourse with a minor is forced not for sexual gratification but as part of a scheme to extort money from a third party.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that Praveen Kumar was not the original perpetrator but was brought to the hotel under duress and deception by Balinder and Pradeep Kyodak. He contended that the act was not motivated by sexual desire but by criminal intent to extort Rs. 1.5 lakh, and that the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicated coercion. He relied on the principle that bail should be granted where trial is unduly delayed and the accused is not the principal offender.
For the Respondent/State
The State and complainant’s counsel argued that the victim’s statement, both under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in deposition, clearly established non-consensual sexual intercourse. They emphasized that the POCSO Act protects minors from any form of sexual abuse, regardless of the perpetrator’s motive. The fact that the act was part of an extortion plot does not negate the absence of consent or the victim’s status as a child. They cited State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar to affirm that the nature of the act, not the motive, determines culpability under POCSO.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition as PW1, noting that both clearly state that the appellant engaged in sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The Court rejected the argument that the appellant’s role as a tool of extortion diminished his culpability.
"Merely because he was brought to the hotel to indulge in this act with the aim to extort money from him would not in any way lessen his culpability."
The Court held that Section 6 of the POCSO Act criminalizes penetrative sexual assault on a child, irrespective of the perpetrator’s motive. The statutory definition of rape under the POCSO Act does not require proof of sexual desire or gratification; it requires only penetration without consent. The Court further noted that the victim’s vulnerability as a minor, her psychological coercion, and the orchestrated nature of the crime only amplify the gravity of the offence.
The Court also dismissed the argument that delay in trial warranted bail, observing that the complexity of the case, involving multiple accused, exploitation networks, and serious charges under multiple statutes, justified the pace of investigation. The fact that only 19 of 51 witnesses had been examined did not, in itself, entitle the accused to bail when the allegations involved a heinous offence against a child.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the denial of bail to Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Sujama. The Court confirmed that his alleged act of engaging in sexual intercourse with the minor victim without her consent, even if orchestrated for extortion, constitutes rape under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant remains in custody pending trial. No bail was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Is Absolute Under POCSO
- Practitioners must understand that any sexual act with a minor under 18 without consent is rape under POCSO, regardless of motive, context, or coercion by third parties
- The defence of "instrumental use" or "lack of sexual intent" is legally irrelevant under Section 6
- Prosecutors should emphasize the victim’s lack of agency and the coercive environment in all POCSO cases involving exploitation networks
Bail Denial in POCSO Cases Is Now Clearer
- Delay in trial alone cannot override the seriousness of POCSO offences
- Courts will not grant bail where the allegations involve penetration of a minor, even if the accused is not the primary orchestrator
- Defence counsel must now focus on procedural safeguards and evidence challenges rather than delay-based bail arguments in POCSO cases
Third-Party Coercion Does Not Absolve Liability
- Individuals who participate in sexual acts with minors, even under duress from others, remain criminally liable
- This judgment closes a potential loophole where accused claimed they were "used" by traffickers or extortionists
- Lawyers must advise clients that involvement in any sexual act with a minor, even under threat, carries severe criminal consequences under POCSO
