On February 22, 2022, in the case of X (Minor) vs. the State of Jharkhand and Amr. the Supreme Court revoked bail granted to an accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act 2012), stating that once the Court determines that the prosecutrix was a minor, the grounds of a “love affair” between her and the accused, as well as the accused’s alleged refusal to marry, would be irrelevant for bail. The appeal was heard by the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant from a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand in August 2021, in which the second respondent/accused was granted bail, subject to restrictions, by a Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand. The bench noted that an FIR was filed in District Ranchi on January 27, 2021, for offenses punishable under section 376 of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act, among other things. “The petitioner alleges in her complaint that the second respondent took her to a residential hotel when she was a child and engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marrying her.” The complainant further claims that the second respondent refused to marry her and had sent her father indecent videos. The second respondent’s application for anticipatory bail was denied by the Special Judge (POCSO), Ranchi in February 2021. Following that, the second respondent surrendered and applied for bail. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Chandrachud further said, “The application for bail was granted by a single judge of the Jharkhand High Court. The following paragraph from the contested order of August 20, 2021 contains the reasons that the Single Judge considered: ‘It appears that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the informant, as evidenced by the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the averments made in the FIR, and the case appears to have been instituted solely on the basis of the petitioner’s refusal to solemnize marriage with the informant.'” The bench observed that Senior Advocate Anand Grover, for the appellant, submits that:
1. The appellant’s date of birth as recorded in the Aadhar card is 1 January 2005;
2. At the time the alleged offences are stated to have occurred, she was just about 13 years of age; and
3. Having regard to the provisions of Section 376 of the IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act, the reasons which the High Court weighed are ex facie extraneous and the application form, therefore, could not have been allowed. The bench also noted in its order that Advocate Rajesh Ranjan, for the second respondent, relied on the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. The bench noted that, despite the fact that the charge sheet had been filed, there had been no recovery of the alleged obscene video, nor was there any medical evidence that the second respondent had sexual relations with the appellant. Justice Surya Kant remarked orally “Medical evidence and all is a matter of trial”. “Once prima facie it appears from the material before the court that the appellant was barely 13 years of age on the date when the alleged offense took place, the ground that the appellant and the second respondent had a ‘love affair,’ as well as the alleged refusal to marry, maybe circumstances against the grant of bail,” the bench continued in its order. Given the prosecutrix’s age, as well as the nature and gravity of the crime, no argument for granting bail could be made. In light of the requirements of section 376 of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act, the considerations considered by the High Court in granting bail are extraneous in nature. As a result, we grant the appeal and reverse the High Court’s decision. The second respondent must surrender immediately as a result of the High Court’s ruling being set aside,” the bench said.