Image for representation purpose only.

The boy should not be arrested if two young persons go on a date, said Uttarakhand High Court, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed pertaining to gender discrimination in teenage dating.

The observations were made by a Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Bahari and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, which added that the State could examine the issue whether recording of the statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) would be sufficient not to arrest the boy, who had gone on a date with the girl.

To mention, CrPC has now been replaced with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

“….at the most, he can be called for giving him advice not to indulge in these things, but he should not be arrested. The State can examine this issue and issue a general direction for the Police department,” the High Court observed in a July 1 order.

In the PIL, advocate Manish Bhandari sought directions to the State to examine the issue of minors getting arrested for dating, mostly on the complaints filed by girl’s parents.

“In cases where two young persons, one is girl and one is boy, are dating each other, they may be between the age of 16 to 18 years, and on the complaint made by the parents of the girl, the boy should not be arrested if no offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act is made out,” the PIL reads.

The petitioner says he was forced to file the PIL as in most cases of teenage dating, the girls are considered as victims while boys are treated as perpetrators.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has refused bail relief to an Uttarakhand boy, who allegedly shot obscene videos of his 14-year-old classmate and circulated. The girl went missing from her home in October last year and was later found dead. She is suspected to have died by suicide.

The girl’s father said in his complaint that she died by suicide out of shame. The boy has been charged with IPC sections relating to abetment of suicide of a child and act intended to outrage modesty of a woman. Relevant sections under the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act have also been invoked.

Earlier, the juvenile justice board and the High Court of Uttarakhand refused bail to the teenaged accused, after which his mother approached the Supreme Court. The matter came up yesterday before a vacation bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal.

“After carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court at this stage,” the bench said.

Denying bail to the teenager, the high court had said, “Bail may be denied if there are reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring the ‘child in conflict with law’ into the association of any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or if his release would defeat the ends of justice.”

“Having considered the social investigation report, the medical examination report, the report from the school, this court is of the view that the best interest of the child would be served if he is not granted bail. If he is released on bail, it would definitely defeat the ends of justice,” the high court order states.

The Supreme Court’s denial of bail in this case comes amid the nationwide outrage on the relief granted to a 17-year-old accused of speeding a Porsche in Pune, leading to an accident that left two 24-year-old engineers dead. The teenager, who police say driving in a drunken condition, was granted bail within 15 hours of his detention. A local court let him out on some conditions which many have described as flimsy — he was asked to write a 300-word essay on accidents, told to work with traffic police for 15 days and asked to undergo counselling for his drinking habit. Pune Police have now approached the juvenile justice board for permission to try him as an adult.