Uttarakhand HC Rejects Bail in POCSO Case, Holds Minor's Consent Irrelevant and Concealment of Religious Identity Aggravates Offence

The Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital refused bail to a man chargesheeted under POCSO, holding the minor victim's consent legally irrelevant and noting prosecution allegations of concealed religious identity.

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, sitting singly at the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, rejected the regular bail application of Tahjim Ansari alias Arman alias Annu, who is chargesheeted for offences under sections 137(2) and 96 read with section 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and under sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court found that medical evidence and school records prima facie established that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, making her consent entirely irrelevant under statute. The prosecution's allegation that the applicant concealed his religious identity to gain the victim's trust was also considered in refusing bail.

How the Case Reached the High Court

The matter has its origin in an FIR lodged on 28 June 2025 by one Gyan Singh at Police Station Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal, bearing Case Crime No. 0013 of 2025. The informant reported that his daughter, said to be 19 years old, left home to appear in a BA examination at 9:30 AM. When he tried to reach her at 2:00 PM, she did not respond. A second call through a sibling revealed she was in Dehradun; she then switched off her phone and went missing.

The FIR was initially registered as a missing-person complaint. After recording the statements of the informant and the victim's mother, the applicant's name surfaced. The missing report was converted into a regular FIR. The victim was subsequently recovered with the applicant at Rishikesh, outside a railway platform.

In her statement, the victim said she had known the applicant since 2024. Both families lived in the same building — the victim's family on an upper floor and the applicant on the ground floor. They began talking and eventually communicated on Instagram. She stated that in March 2024, on the pretext of an outing, the applicant took her into a jungle and forcibly made physical contact, threatening her not to disclose the incident. He subsequently took her to several places, including hotels. A hotel manager, Shah Khan, was also interrogated to verify these facts.

The victim's date of birth was recorded as 25 May 2006. After considering her age on the date of the first alleged incident, investigating authorities added charges under the POCSO Act. By 15 October 2025, the victim had delivered a child. Blood samples were taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA matching. Her statement under section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, recorded that she was unaware of the applicant's religious identity.

Arguments Advanced by the Applicant

Learned counsel for the applicant — Mr. Lalit Sharma, Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, and Mr. Shubham Bhardwaj — pressed several grounds in support of bail.

First, it was argued that the applicant's name does not appear in the body of the FIR and that he was implicated only on suspicion. The FIR was said to be a concocted story filed by the father after he learnt his daughter was six months pregnant, motivated by a desire to protect family dignity rather than report a genuine offence.

On the question of age, counsel argued that as of the alleged occurrence date of 27 June 2025, the victim was 19 years old. Even if the March 2024 incident were taken into account, the victim would have been approximately 17 years and 9 months old based on her school certificate — a discrepancy said to cast serious doubt on the age determination underlying the POCSO charges.

Counsel also submitted that the victim's own statement acknowledged she was friends with the applicant, communicated with him on Instagram, and voluntarily went on outings with him. This, it was argued, meant the physical relationship was consensual and could not be treated as an offence.

On the POCSO angle specifically, counsel contended that the March 2024 incident was deliberately introduced into the victim's statement — despite the FIR being lodged over a year later — solely to attract POCSO provisions.

Finally, it was submitted that the applicant had been in custody since 28 June 2025, had no criminal antecedent, and is a painter by profession. Counsel also stated that the applicant has deep affection for the victim and is willing to marry her to “legitimize the relationship” and secure the future of the child.

State's Opposition

Learned Additional Government Advocate Mrs. Rangoli Purohit opposed bail on every ground. She submitted that the victim is a school-going minor whose consent has no legal validity. She argued that the applicant intentionally suppressed his religious identity to gain the minor's trust, thereby leading to her pregnancy, which she described as aggravating the gravity of the offence.

On specific instruction from the State, the AGA informed the court that the victim and her parents are entirely opposed to any marriage proposal and want strict action against the applicant.

The AGA further relied on the medical report and the doctor's statement to submit that the minor was sexually assaulted. She argued that the combination of the heinous nature of the offence, the minority of the victim, and the concealment of religious identity made bail wholly undeserved.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Thapliyal examined the rival submissions and identified two primary pillars on which the bail application had to fail.

The first was the statutory bar on consent under the POCSO Act. The court found that medical evidence and school records prima facie established the victim's minority at the time of the alleged incident. Once that finding stands, the consent of the minor becomes entirely irrelevant in the eyes of law. The applicant's plea of a romantic relationship, and his offer to marry the victim, could not “dilute the statutory protection granted to minor child under the POCSO Act.”

The second was the prosecution's allegation of concealment of religious identity. The court recorded that the prosecution had brought forth a serious allegation that the applicant concealed his religion to obtain the minor's trust. The victim's own statement under section 183 of the BNSS confirmed she was unaware of his religious affiliation. The court took this allegation into consideration as part of the overall assessment without making a final finding on the charge.

Bringing together the victim's age, the medical fact of her pregnancy, and the statutory bar under POCSO, the court concluded it was not a fit case for bail. The court expressly noted that any observation made in the order would not influence the trial court proceedings, and the trial court remains free to proceed on its own merits.

Outcome

First Bail Application No. 740 of 2026 was rejected by order dated 19 August 2026. Tahjim Ansari alias Arman alias Annu remains in custody. The trial before the competent court will proceed independently of the observations in this order.