Consensual Romantic Relationship With Minor Near 18 Years Can Be Considered For Bail In POCSO Case: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that while consent of a minor has no legal value, the romantic nature of the relationship and the prosecutrix's age being close to 18 years are relevant considerations at the stage of bail.
Justice Vikas Mahajan allowed the bail application filed by one Varun Kumar Singh, noting that the case prima facie appeared to arise out of a romantic relationship rather than an incident involving violence, coercion or brutality.
Singh was arrested in August 2023 in an FIR registered under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that he took the prosecutrix, aged around 14 years, to Agra and established physical relations with her.
During investigation, the minor stated that she had accompanied Singh to Agra of her own will. Since no school records were available, a bone ossification test was conducted, which assessed her age to be more than 14 years but less than 17 years.
Allowing the bail plea, the Court relied upon a division bench ruling wherein it was held that in case of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, wherever the Court is called upon to determine the age of victim based on 'bone age ossification test' the upper age given in 'reference range' be considered as age of the victim.
Justice Mahajan thus observed that going by the said dictum, the age of the prosecutrix in the case will have to be taken as 17 years.
“Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, therefore, her consent for sexual relations, if any, between them, will have no value in the eyes of law, but taking her age as 17 years, it prima facie appears that prosecutrix was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity, and her romantic involvement with the petitioner is one of the consideration which tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail,” the Court said.
Referring to various settled judgments on the issue, the Court said that it was not a case where prosecutrix was subjected to any violence or brutality, rather it was the case in which she appeared to be in romantic relationship with the accused and willingly went with him to Agra.
Noting that even in the FIR it was alleged that prosecutrix and the accused were friends, the Court took note of the fact that all material witnesses, including the prosecutrix and her mother, had already been examined, and the petitioner had been in custody for over two years and five months.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha and Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State; Ms. Vrinda Bhandari and Ms. Nitya Jain, Advs. for Prosecutrix
Title: VARUN KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (SHO RAJINDER NAGAR)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 143