In a controversial ruling, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Abhishek, an accused of raping a minor girl, after he assured the court that he would marry her and take care of their newborn child. The court’s decision, announced on Tuesday, raises significant questions about the legal and ethical implications surrounding such cases.
Justice Krishan Pahal, who presided over the case, emphasized the need for a nuanced approach in matters involving adolescent relationships. He directed the accused to fulfill his promise by marrying the victim within three months of his release from jail and taking responsibility for the upbringing of their child. The court also mandated that Abhishek deposit ₹2 lakh in a fixed account in the name of the newborn, to be accessible when the child reaches adulthood.
“The applicant shall deposit a sum of ₹2,00,000 in the name of the newborn baby of the victim till her attaining the age of majority within a period of six months from the date of release from jail,” Justice Pahal stated, highlighting the court’s focus on ensuring financial security for the child.
The prosecution presented a grim narrative, alleging that Abhishek, aged 22, deceived the 15-year-old victim under the pretense of marriage, leading to her pregnancy. Following his refusal to marry her and threats directed at her, the victim reported the incident, prompting legal action under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at the Chilkana police station in Saharanpur district.
The defense counsel contended that the victim was now of legal age, citing an ossification report that indicated she was 18. They argued that the survivor had stated in her testimony before a magistrate that no force was used against her. The lawyer further assured the court that if granted bail, Abhishek would not misuse his freedom and would indeed fulfill his obligations.
In light of these arguments and the complex nature of adolescent relationships, the court concluded that the circumstances warranted a careful consideration of the case. While this ruling has drawn attention to the legal ramifications surrounding consent and responsibility in such sensitive matters, it also underscores the ongoing challenges faced by the judicial system in addressing cases of sexual violence.
As this case unfolds, it prompts a broader conversation about the responsibilities of individuals in positions of power and the societal expectations regarding the protection and welfare of minors.
