Introduction:

In the case Satyam Sonkar @ Badkau vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others, the Allahabad High Court has passed a remarkable order granting two-month interim bail to a young man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), directing him to look after the minor victim, who is approximately 17 years old, belongs to a different faith, and is five months pregnant. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan issued this interim bail order considering the welfare of the victim and her unborn child, observing that both the applicant and the victim are in a relationship and wish to marry under the Special Marriage Act once they attain the legally permissible age. The Court specifically noted that the continuation or conversion of interim bail into permanent bail will depend on the conduct of the applicant and the satisfaction of both the victim and her mother, who is the complainant in the present case. The judge ordered that the applicant and the prosecutrix, along with her mother, shall appear in person before the Court on September 3, 2025, to update the bench regarding the care and support provided by the applicant during the interim bail period, and to confirm whether the prosecutrix is satisfied with the applicant’s efforts.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The applicant’s counsel submitted that the applicant, aged about 20 years and 8 months, has been in custody since March 6, 2025, facing charges under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of the BNS and Sections 5J(11)/6 of the POCSO Act. The defense argued that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual, and although both parties are below the legally permissible marriageable age, they had already married each other of their own volition, albeit informally and not socially recognized. It was emphasized that the applicant is willing to marry the prosecutrix formally under the Special Marriage Act as soon as both reach marriageable age, and that he is prepared to take full responsibility for the victim, provide her necessary medical care during her pregnancy, and support her as his wife. Supporting the applicant’s plea, counsel for the complainant/mother of the victim informed the Court that the family had no objection to the proposed marriage between the applicant and the victim and confirmed their consent to the relationship. The complainant’s counsel argued that granting interim bail would serve the best interests of the victim and her unborn child, ensuring they receive proper care during this sensitive period. Conversely, the State’s counsel raised concerns about the gravity of the charges under the POCSO Act, pointing out that the law treats any sexual relationship with a minor as statutory rape regardless of consent, making the applicant liable under stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. The State argued that releasing the accused on bail could set a bad precedent by undermining the protective intent of the POCSO Act, which aims to safeguard minors from exploitation. However, the State did not strongly oppose interim relief considering the victim’s current medical condition and her family’s stance but requested the Court to impose strict conditions on the applicant’s conduct to ensure the welfare of the prosecutrix.

Court’s Judgement:

After hearing the parties, the bench observed that the welfare of the victim and her unborn child must be given paramount importance and that the peculiar facts of this case, including the willingness of both parties to marry under the Special Marriage Act upon attaining the legal age, justified granting interim bail. Justice Chauhan’s order recorded that the applicant shall provide all necessary medical facilities to the victim during the period of pregnancy and properly look after her well-being. The Court emphasized that this order was passed primarily considering the best interests of the prosecutrix, who is five months pregnant, and the fact that the victim’s mother supported the plea for interim bail. The Court directed both the applicant and the prosecutrix, along with the victim’s mother, to appear in person before the bench on September 3, 2025, to allow the Court to evaluate whether the applicant has taken proper care of the victim and whether she and her mother are satisfied with the applicant’s efforts. The Court further directed that upon both parties attaining the legally permissible age for marriage, they shall apply to get their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act at the appropriate authority. Justice Chauhan clarified that the decision on whether to extend the interim bail or convert it into absolute bail would depend entirely on the conduct of the applicant during the interim period and the satisfaction of the victim and her mother regarding his support and care. The Court made it clear that any lapse or failure on the applicant’s part to provide proper care or any act of misconduct would invite reconsideration of the interim bail order and could lead to its cancellation. The order demonstrates a compassionate yet cautious judicial approach, balancing the statutory mandate of the POCSO Act with the practical and humanitarian considerations of ensuring the welfare of a pregnant minor who is alleged to be in a consensual relationship with the applicant. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on September 3, 2025, when the parties’ appearance and their statements regarding the applicant’s conduct during the interim bail period will inform the Court’s final decision on the matter.