The Madras High Court has granted bail to a 20-year-old engineering student facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, after he submitted an affidavit promising not to attempt to marry the minor complainant until she reaches the legal marriageable age and assuring that caste differences would not impede a future union.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar issued the order while hearing the student’s criminal appeal against a July 9 decision by a trial court that had dismissed his bail petition. The High Court noted that counsel representing the schoolgirl raised no serious objection to his release following the formal undertaking, while the court instituted safeguards to ensure the minor faces no pressure or interference during ongoing proceedings.
Affidavit and Family Positions
In his affidavit submitted to the court, the student affirmed that he would not compel, induce, or influence the girl to marry him before she reaches the legally permissible age, adding that any prospective marriage would rely entirely on her voluntary decision. He further stated that if she freely chooses to marry him upon reaching adulthood, her caste or community background will not be treated as a barrier or ground for refusal, and that community considerations would not obstruct a lawful marriage.
The student’s mother appeared before the bench and confirmed that she had no objection to a future marriage once both individuals reach the permissible age. The court’s order also noted that the accused’s father, currently working in Saudi Arabia, communicated his consent as well. The prosecution pointed out that both individuals are yet to complete their education and highlighted that the police investigation remains ongoing.
Bail Conditions and Court Safeguards
Granting the appeal, Justice Nirmal Kumar directed the accused to execute a bond of Rs 5,000 with two sureties of equal value. Under the terms of the release, the student must report to police whenever required, must not abscond, and is barred from tampering with witnesses or evidence during the investigation and trial.
The court cautioned that causing any inconvenience or distress to the girl could result in the cancellation of his bail. Additionally, the investigating officer was instructed to consider the developments recorded in the High Court’s ruling as the investigation advances.
Case Background and Conflicting Accounts
The student had been taken into custody on June 27 on allegations of penetrative sexual assault of a minor, criminal intimidation, causing hurt, and caste-related offences under the POCSO Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
During the hearing, the court recorded contrasting accounts presented by the two sides without ruling on the competing claims. The defence maintained that the student and the girl, who reside in the same village, shared a consensual romantic relationship that later became physical. According to the defence, the student had agreed to marry her after finishing his studies, securing employment, and reaching legal age, but the girl’s family registered a police case after his parents initially raised objections when informed of her pregnancy.
Conversely, counsel for the girl argued that penetrative sexual assault occurred under duress and compulsion. The counsel stated that when the girl revealed the pregnancy to the accused, he avoided her, became uncontactable, and disowned the pregnancy, compelling her to file the criminal complaint.
