Allahabad HC Grants Bail To POCSO Convict Noting Marriage With Prosecutrix, Birth Of Child
The Allahabad Excessive Court docket on Wednesday granted bail to a person convicted beneath the POCSO Act, noting that he had married the prosecutrix and the couple had been dwelling collectively as husband and spouse, with a toddler born out of their wedlock.
Although observing that the convict’s act was “not solely unlawful but in addition immoral“, a bench of Justice Rajeev Misra opined that the “criminality, if any, dedicated by applicant/appellant stood washed off” given the next developments, together with the wedding between the events and the start of their son.
Briefly put, accused Mayank was convicted by a Particular POCSO Court docket, Firozabad in December 2024 beneath Part 376 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act and was sentenced to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution alleged that the offence occurred when the sufferer (now spouse of the accused) was under 18 years of age.
Nonetheless, throughout the pendency of trial courtroom proceedings, the applicant/appellant solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs.
Pursuant to this, the events began dwelling collectively as husband and spouse, and one little one was additionally given start by the prosecutrix. Nonetheless, in December 2024, the trial courtroom convicted him.
Now, earlier than the bench, the counsel for the accused argued that for the reason that prosecutrix had change into the legally wedded spouse of the appellant, the trial courtroom had erred in convicting him.
To bolster his submissions, the counsel for the accused referred to the Supreme Court docket’s latest judgments within the instances of K. Dhandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Mafat Lal vs State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362 and Shriram Urav vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 160, whereby the Apex Court docket quashed the felony prosecution of the accused therein on the bottom that the accused therein had solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix.
Lastly, it was argued that for the reason that enchantment is prima facie liable to be allowed, due to this fact, by purpose of the legislation, the applicant/appellant was liable to be enlarged on bail in the course of the pendency of the trial.
On the opposite hand, the AGA, for the State, argued that the accused deserved no indulgence by the Court docket as on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was a toddler inside the which means of the time period little one as outlined within the POCSO Act and thus, he was liable to be punished.
Nonetheless, he couldn’t dislodge the factual and authorized submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in assist of his software for suspension of sentence.
Towards the backdrop of those submissions, the Court docket whereas the offence was “not solely unlawful but in addition immoral,” it got here in proof that she had solemnized marriage with the applicant-appellant in the course of the pendency of the trial.
“In view of above, the criminality, if any, dedicated by applicant/appellant stood washed off”, the Court docket remarked because it famous that the Supreme Court docket’s judgments in Ok. Dhandapani, Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and Shriram Urav clearly utilized on this case.
The Court docket additionally famous that the couple had a son from the wedlock and had been dwelling as a contented household, and that the applicant had clear antecedents.
Thus, his software for suspension of sentence/prayer for bail was allowed. The bench, nonetheless, as an interim measure, directed that till additional orders, the restoration of the high quality awarded by the Trial Court docket within the judgment shall stay stayed.
Appearances
For appellant: Senior Advocate Kamal Krishna, assisted by Advocate Ghan Shyam Das,
For Respondent: AGA for State, Advocate Ram Badan Maurya for the primary informant
Case title – Mayank Alias Ramsharan vs. State Of U.P. And three Others
