Patna: A subsequent settlement between the parties cannot override the statutory presumption operating under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Patna High Court has ruled, holding that an offence against a minor is a crime against society rather than a private dispute.
Justice Purnendu Singh made the observation while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of Md Sartaj Alam in connection with Araria Women’s Police Station Case No. 47/2025.
The court held that a non-compoundable offence under the POCSO Act cannot be diluted or treated as settled merely because the parties subsequently reach an agreement.
Allegations Of Sexual Exploitation And Abandonment
According to the FIR, the victim met the accused around one-and-a-half years earlier while pursuing her studies.
The accused is alleged to have established a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage and taken objectionable photographs of her. He allegedly later refused to marry her and, on September 4, 2025, took her to another location on the pretext of completing a court marriage before abandoning her there.
The FIR further alleges that attempts were made twice to resolve the dispute through a family-level panchayat.
It also alleges that when the victim and her family went to the accused’s house, they were assaulted and verbally abused. The family allegedly faced demands for Rs 10 lakh in cash, a four-wheeler and dowry, along with threats to their lives.
Settlement Reached During Mediation
The case had previously come before coordinate benches of the High Court and was referred, with the consent of the parties, to the Patna High Court Mediation Centre.
A settlement was reached on July 3, 2026, under which the accused agreed to pay Rs 5.50 lakh. He paid Rs 1 lakh as an advance.
The subsequent settlement, however, did not persuade the court to grant anticipatory bail.
‘POCSO Offence Is A Crime Against Society’
The High Court noted that a statutory presumption applies to offences under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and held that a subsequent compromise cannot displace or rebut that presumption.
The court also noted that the settlement deed itself acknowledged the alleged incident. It therefore held that the statutory presumption arising under the POCSO Act could not be extinguished on the basis of the same settlement.
Citing judgments of the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that a non-compoundable offence cannot become compoundable simply because the parties have reached a compromise.
The court consequently rejected Md Sartaj Alam’s plea for anticipatory bail.
