In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a 24-year-old man who had been charged with raping an 14-year-old girl. The decision, announced on February 17, was based on the court's observation that the victim had "voluntarily" stayed with the accused for four days and possessed "sufficient knowledge" and "capacity" to understand the "full consequence of her acts." The order was passed by Justice Milind Jadhav, who carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the case before arriving at his conclusion.

The court examined the victim’s own statements, wherein she admitted to having a consensual relationship with the accused and acknowledged being aware of her actions. She also confirmed that she had spent over three days and three nights with him. Taking these facts into account, Justice Jadhav pointed out that while Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act carry severe penalties, courts retain the discretion to grant or deny bail depending on the merits of each case. This principle, he explained, ensures that the "objectives of justice" are upheld in every judicial decision.

During the hearing, the court noted an important aspect from the victim’s statements, stating, "According to victim both of them known to each other for the past 2 years prior to the incident and had developed a love relation with each other. Insofar as the incident is concerned all that is stated in the statements as per record is that for three days and three nights. The victim wandered along with the applicant and on the 3rd night he ravished her modesty and committed assault on her. Prima facie the statement appears to be suspect."

This statement suggests that the victim and the accused had shared a long-standing relationship before the alleged incident took place. The court further emphasized the inconsistencies in the victim’s account, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the case before drawing conclusions. By calling the statement "suspect," the court indicated that the available evidence did not immediately establish the claims made against the accused beyond doubt.

Justice Jadhav’s ruling reflects a broader legal principle that, despite the strict provisions under POCSO, judicial discretion must be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. While safeguarding the rights of minors is crucial, courts are also expected to evaluate whether an accused person should be granted bail, ensuring that justice is served in a balanced manner.

The court, displaying remarkable insight into human behavior, pointed out that the girl had "left her home without informing her parents by her own will and also stayed with applicant for 4 days." Justice Milind Jadhav, unfazed by the victim’s legal status as a minor under the POCSO Act, declared that despite her age, "she had sufficient knowledge and capacity to know the full import of her actions and what she was doing and had only thereafter voluntarily joined and stayed with the applicant for 4 days."

Of course, because a teenager running away from home clearly means she had complete agency over everything that followed. The law, which was ironically created to protect minors, seems to have now evolved into a manual on "how to determine if a minor is responsible enough to make adult decisions—when it benefits the accused."

The court further observed that the girl had changed her statement regarding the exact date of the incident. Naturally, because memory lapses and inconsistencies in traumatic experiences aren’t common at all—unless, of course, they can be used to discredit the victim. Furthermore, the bench highlighted that the accused was not just a stranger but someone the girl had known well, as he had previously worked at the same hotel where her father was employed. The judgment meticulously recorded that, "on reading the statements of witnesses which have been recorded out of which one witness statement is of the hotel owner it is seen that he had also warned the applicant during one of the three days during which she was missing on call."

Yes, a warning call from the hotel owner—what a rock-solid safeguard! Because what else could possibly be required to ensure that a girl is not in danger? The court even went so far as to note that the accused had been warned about his relationship with the girl, with the threat of losing his job. In an astonishing leap of legal brilliance, the court stated, "Therefore on reading of the FIR it is prima facie seen is that the father of victim was aware about her love relationship with the applicant."

Ah, now we arrive at the final piece of the puzzle: parental awareness. Because if a father is remotely aware of his daughter’s association with someone, it apparently negates any possibility of coercion, manipulation, or crime. By this logic, if a father knows his daughter has a male friend, he has essentially signed an invisible consent form, rendering all future incidents irrelevant.

The bench also took this opportunity to highlight how courts—especially the Supreme Court—have ruled in favor of releasing juvenile offenders on bail to "prevent the regressive consequences of the jail environment and to keep in mind the best interest principle in the specific case at hand." Because, of course, the mental and emotional well-being of a girl who ran away from home, got caught in a vulnerable situation, and altered her statements is clearly secondary to ensuring that an accused man does not suffer the "regressive consequences" of prison.

To further solidify the rationale behind this compassionate ruling, the court pointed out that the victim was not violently harmed and that the accused had no prior criminal history. In other words, if there are no broken bones and no previous police records, it is as good as a free pass. This new "judicial standard" seems to suggest that the severity of a crime is not determined by what actually happened but by whether the assailant has been caught doing it before.

Justice Jadhav further noted, "Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is seen that victim has left her parents’ house without informing the parents and has stayed with Applicant for 3 days and 3 nights as also she has confessed that she was in love with the applicant and travelled along with him to different places and had a consensual encounter." Of course, what better way to prove consent than by pointing out that a vulnerable minor traveled with her accused? Because surely, no minor has ever been manipulated, coerced, or made to believe they had no choice.

The accused, who was caught in 2019 at the age of 19, had already served over five years, two months, and twenty-three days in prison, a fact that was heavily weighed before granting him bail. After all, the poor man had already suffered so much. As a magnanimous gesture of justice, he was released on bail under certain conditions, including a "bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount." Yes, Rs. 15,000—a sum so substantial that it will surely prevent any possibility of wrongdoing in the future.

With rulings like these, the Indian judiciary is certainly making strides in ensuring that justice is served—just not necessarily to the victim. The takeaway from this case is crystal clear: if a minor runs away, spends time with an accused, and doesn’t suffer grievous physical injury, the crime is automatically up for re-evaluation. And if the accused has been a good citizen before this, well, why let a single offense get in the way of his bright future?

As legal precedents evolve, one can only imagine what’s next. Perhaps courts will start checking a victim’s "emotional maturity score" before deciding whether a case even qualifies as a crime. After all, in a legal system where "sufficient knowledge and capacity" is enough to override the very definition of minor status, anything seems possible.

What’s in the FIR

As per the First Information Report (FIR), it was the victim’s father who filed the complaint. His daughter, a teenager residing in Malad, had informed him that she was going to visit her married sister in Andheri. Trusting his daughter’s words, he let her leave, unaware that this simple visit would soon turn into a situation requiring legal intervention.

However, when four days passed without any word from her, the father grew increasingly anxious. Naturally, any parent would be alarmed if their child failed to return home or even provide an update. Seeking answers, he reached out to his younger daughter, hoping she would know her sister’s whereabouts. But what he heard only deepened his concerns.

Upon arriving at the elder sister’s residence, the younger daughter was met with unexpected news. The married sister informed her that the teenager had indeed come to visit on the first day but had left soon after, never to return. This revelation raised immediate red flags—if she wasn’t at her sister’s house, then where had she been for the past four days?

The father, now increasingly worried, began searching for his missing daughter. His efforts finally led him to Juhu Chowpatti, a popular beachside area in Mumbai, where he found his daughter along with the accused, aimlessly wandering about. After four days of uncertainty and distress, he took her home. It was only after this encounter that he approached the authorities and formally registered a complaint.

One might assume that a father’s distress upon finding his missing daughter in such a situation would be taken seriously. After all, this wasn’t a case of a simple misunderstanding—his teenage daughter had vanished for days, only to be found roaming around with a man. But, as seen in previous court observations, the judiciary has developed a rather "progressive" approach to such cases. Instead of focusing on how or why the girl ended up in such a situation, the narrative quickly shifted towards whether she had "sufficient knowledge" and "capacity" to understand her actions. Because, apparently, when a minor goes missing, the real question isn’t about her safety but about how mature she was in making that decision.

The irony in this case is hard to ignore. A father, desperate to find his daughter, goes through all the right steps—he waits, checks with family, searches for her himself, and, upon finding her with a man, does what any responsible parent would do: files a legal complaint. Yet, instead of acknowledging his concern, the court appears to have taken a different approach—one that examines whether the minor should have known better.

Perhaps, the legal system should now consider issuing "Parenting Guidelines" for fathers in similar situations. Rule 1: If your teenage daughter disappears, don’t panic—wait patiently until the judiciary determines if she had the mental capacity to run away. Rule 2: If you find her with a man, don’t jump to conclusions—it’s entirely possible that the law may view her disappearance as an "informed choice."

With this case setting yet another example of "judicial discretion at its finest," one must wonder—at what point does the protection of minors actually protect them? If a father’s complaint isn’t enough to establish that something has gone wrong, then what exactly is? Perhaps, in the future, we’ll see courts analyzing "emotional maturity certificates" before deciding whether a minor qualifies as a victim. After all, in a system where a runaway teenager is scrutinized more than the man she was found with, anything is possible.