Archive · 7 Jan 2026
Courts Differ on POCSO Act Interpretations
The Meghalaya High Court granted bail to a 24-year-old man who was arrested under the POCSO Act.
The court said that the man and a 17-year-old girl were in a romantic relationship and that the POCSO Act was not meant to punish adolescent boys in such cases.
The court also said that the relationship was consensual and that the man should not be treated as an offender.
The court directed that the man should not contact the girl without the court's permission.
In a separate case, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a man for aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
The court held that making a small child touch private parts with sexual intent is aggravated sexual assault.
The man was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
The Meghalaya High Court granted bail to a 24-year-old man arrested under the POCSO Act, citing a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old girl.
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a man for aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act for making a 4-year-old girl touch his private parts.
The Meghalaya court observed that punishing adolescent boys was not the objective of the POCSO Act, while the Delhi court emphasized the severity of sexual assault on children.
The Meghalaya court directed that the petitioner shall not contact the survivor without court permission.
The Delhi court rejected the accused's claims of tutoring and lack of evidence, upholding the trial court's conviction and sentence.
- Who
- A 24-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl in a romantic relationship, and a man convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a 4-year-old girl
- What
- The Meghalaya High Court granted bail to the 24-year-old man under the POCSO Act, while the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the man for aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act
- When
- The FIR in the Meghalaya case was registered in October 2025, and the Delhi case incident occurred in June 2022
- Where
- Meghalaya High Court and Delhi High Court
- Why
- The Meghalaya court observed that the relationship was consensual and punishing adolescent boys was not the objective of the POCSO Act, while the Delhi court held that making a child touch private parts with sexual intent is aggravated sexual assault
- Petitioner's Age
- 24 years
- Victim's Age
- 17 years
- Date of Arrest
- October 10, 2025
- POCSO Act Sections
- 3(a) and 4
- Court's Observation
- Punishing adolescent boys was never the objective of POCSO Act
- Bail Condition
- Petitioner shall not contact the survivor without court permission
- Appealant's Age
- Not specified
- Victim's Age (Delhi Case)
- Around 4 years
- Date of Incident (Delhi Case)
- June 2022
- Sentence (Delhi Case)
- 7 years' rigorous imprisonment
Sources
‘Punishing adolescent boy never objective of POCSO’: Meghalaya High Court grants bail to 24-year-old in consensual case
Minor girl from Palghar raped by man she met on Instagram
Making Child Touch Private Parts Is Aggravated Sexual Assault: Delhi Court
Thane court acquits man of stalking, harassing minor girl; finds no ‘sexual intent’
Making small child touch pvt parts is sexual assault: HC
