The age of consent is irrelevant in bail decisions under the POCSO Act; factors such as the nature of the offence and the accused's behavior must guide discretion.

ORDER :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent-State, Ms. M.S. Hange, learned advocate appointed for respondent No. 2 and Mr. A.R. Joshi, who has assisted this Court as amicus curiae in this case.

2. The applicant is seeking bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 220/2024 dated 8.6.2024 registered with Shillegaon Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2) (N), 376(3), 366-A, 363, 109 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (‘IPC’ for short) and sections 4, 6, 8, 12, 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO’ Act for short).

3. This Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 has recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP, which are as under :-

“3. The FIR is registered by the father of the victim that on 7.6.2024 unknown person had kidnapped the victim, who was 14 years, 11 months and 10 days old at the time of incident. It is stated that on 16.6.2024 the victim was traced. Thereafter, statement of victim was recorded and the crime is registered for aforesaid offences. In the statement of victim, she has stated that the applicant had forcefully taken the victim with him and had forceful sexual intercourse with her. Investigation is completed and chargesheet in the matter is also filed on 10.09.2024. The bail application of the applicant is rejected by the trial Court. After filing of the chargehseet, the present bail application is filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that on perusal of statement of victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., it reveals that the victim has travelled with the applicant on her own will as there was love relations between them and she has stayed with the applicant for the period of ten days. The learned counsel submits that the victim was of age of understanding. The learned counsel submits that applicant is only 20 years of age and since the date of arrest he is behind bars. Investigation in the matter is completed and chargeheet also filed. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases :-

(i) Order of Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj @ Musa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. /2024 (@SLP (CRL) No. 11020/2024) dated 4.10.2024.

(ii) Judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Dattatray Kolekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Appeal No. 445/2022 dated 6.5.2022 and (iii) Order of this Court in the case of Nitin Damodar Dhaberao Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application (BA) No. 718/2023 dated 5.1.2024

5. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, prays to release the applicant on regular bail.

6. Per contra, the learned APP has relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X (Minor) Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 263/2022 (Arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 9317 of 2021 dated 21.2.20222 and prayed for rejection of application for grant of bail.”

4. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X (Minor) Vs. The State of Maharashtra cited supra, this Court has requested the learned counsel Mr. Amol Ram Joshi, amicus curie, to assist the Court in deciding whether bail can be granted to the applicant in view of the above judgment of Sup