The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to a 22-year-old man accused of raping a 15-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has reignited discussions on judicial sensitivity in cases of sexual violence against minors. The ruling, delivered on Monday (April 14) by Justice Milind Jadhav, comes amid the Supreme Court’s sharp rebuke of a controversial Allahabad High Court judgment that downplayed an assault on a minor, labeling it “insensitive and inhumane.”
Bombay High Court’s Ruling: Bail in POCSO Case
On Monday, April 14, 2025, Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man who had been jailed for three years on charges of raping a 15-year-old girl. The court noted that the minor was aware of her actions and their consequences, citing a consensual romantic relationship.
“The girl’s statement clearly indicates that the two were in a romantic relationship and that the physical relationship was consensual. She left her house of her own volition and went with the accused,” the bench observed.
The case dates back to August 8, 2020, when the minor went missing from her home in Navi Mumbai. Her father suspected she had eloped with the accused and searched for her at his rented accommodation, only to find it empty. The accused denied any knowledge of her whereabouts when contacted. Two days later, the girl informed her father that she was in the accused’s native village in Uttar Pradesh.
In May 2021, ten months later, the girl contacted her father, revealing she was pregnant and that the accused refused to marry her. She sought help to return to Navi Mumbai, and her father, accompanied by police, brought her back from Uttar Pradesh, where she was found living with another woman.
The girl’s statement to authorities revealed she had known the accused since 2019. Despite parental objections, they continued meeting, and in March 2020, the accused allegedly forced her into a sexual relationship before returning to his village due to the COVID-19 lockdown. He later returned and took her with him. The Bombay High Court emphasized that the family took no immediate action when informed of her whereabouts and that denying bail would not serve justice, given the trial’s delay of nearly four years.
Judicial Context: A Pattern of Controversy
The Bombay High Court’s ruling adds to a series of judicial decisions in sexual offense cases that have sparked debate over their tone and implications. In a notable precedent, the Supreme Court, on November 19, 2021, overturned a Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) decision that acquitted an accused, ruling that touching a minor’s private parts without “skin-to-skin contact” did not constitute an offense under the POCSO Act. The apex court clarified that any act with sexual intent falls under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, emphasizing intent over physical contact.
Allahabad High Court’s Rulings
The Allahabad High Court has faced significant scrutiny for recent judgments in sexual offense cases, perceived as lenient or insensitive. On April 10, 2025, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, in a rape case filed in September 2024, remarked: “Even if the allegations are accepted as true, it appears that the victim herself invited trouble and is also responsible for the alleged rape.” The court granted bail to the accused, noting that medical evidence of a torn hymen lacked confirmation of sexual assault and that the act was consensual. The ruling drew criticism for appearing to blame the victim.
Earlier, in the second week of March 2025, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra stated in another case: “Pressing breasts and pulling the drawstring of a woman’s pajama does not amount to attempted rape.” The bench accepted a criminal revision petition filed by three accused individuals. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of this judgment, with Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih condemning it: “Some of the observations made by the High Court are completely insensitive and reflect an inhuman approach. It is deeply unfortunate that the judge who wrote the order lacked basic sensitivity.” Notices were issued to the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government, and other parties.
The Kasganj Case
The most recent uproar stems from a Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh, case heard by the Allahabad High Court. On March 17, 2025, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra delivered a ruling in a case involving the assault of a 14-year-old girl, stating: “Touching a girl’s private parts, breaking the drawstring of her pajamas, and attempting to drag her under a culvert does not constitute rape or attempt to rape.”
The court ordered the removal of the “attempt to rape” charge, directing the case to proceed under lesser provisions related to sexual harassment.
The incident occurred on November 10, 2021, when the minor and her mother were returning home from a relative’s house in Patiali. Three men—Pawan, Akash, and Ashok—approached them, and Pawan offered to drop the girl home on his motorcycle. Instead, Pawan and Akash allegedly touched her private parts, and Akash attempted to drag her under a culvert, breaking her pajama drawstring. The girl’s screams alerted two passersby, who were threatened by the accused with a country-made pistol before they fled.
The mother’s attempt to file an FIR was ignored by the police, and she faced abuse and threats from Pawan’s father, Ashok, when confronting his family. She approached the courts, filing a complaint on January 12, 2022, which was accepted as a case on March 21, 2022. Pawan and Akash were charged under IPC Sections 376, 354, 354B, and Section 18 of the POCSO Act, while Ashok faced charges under IPC Sections 504 and 506.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in this case triggered widespread condemnation for downplaying the assault and undermining the POCSO Act’s protective framework.
Comments