'Criminality Stood Washed Off': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To POCSO Convict Noting Marriage With Prosecutrix, Birth Of Child

Though observing that the convict's act was "not only illegal but also immoral", a bench of Justice Rajeev Misra opined that the "criminality, if any, committed by applicant/appellant stood washed off" given the subsequent developments, including the marriage between the parties and the birth of their son.

Briefly put, accused Mayank was convicted by a Special POCSO Court, Firozabad in December 2024 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 POCSO Act and was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that the offence occurred when the victim (now wife of the accused) was below 18 years of age.

However, during the pendency of trial court proceedings, the applicant/appellant solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs.

Pursuant to this, the parties started living together as husband and wife, and one child was also given birth by the prosecutrix. However, in December 2024, the trial court convicted him.

Now, before the bench, the counsel for the accused argued that since the prosecutrix had become the legally wedded wife of the appellant, the trial court had erred in convicting him.

To bolster his submissions, the counsel for the accused referred to the Supreme Court's recent judgments in the cases 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, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of the accused therein on the ground that the accused therein had solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix.

Lastly, it was argued that since the appeal is prima facie liable to be allowed, therefore, by reason of the law, the applicant/appellant was liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

On the other hand, the AGA, for the State, argued that the accused deserved no indulgence by the Court as on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was a child within the meaning of the term child as defined in the POCSO Act and thus, he was liable to be punished.

However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in support of his application for suspension of sentence.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court while the offence was “not only illegal but also immoral,” it came in evidence that she had solemnized marriage with the applicant-appellant during the pendency of the trial.

“In view of above, the criminality, if any, committed by applicant/appellant stood washed off”, the Court remarked as it noted that the Supreme Court's judgments in K. Dhandapani, Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and Shriram Urav clearly applied in this case.

The Court also noted that the couple had a son from the wedlock and were living as a happy family, and that the applicant had clean antecedents.

Thus, his application for suspension of sentence/prayer for bail was allowed. The bench, however, as an interim measure, directed that until further orders, the recovery of the fine awarded by the Trial Court in the judgment shall remain 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 first informant