The Delhi High Court has observed that the young age of an accused and a minor victim, coupled with their intimate and romantic relationship, can constitute mitigating factors while considering a bail plea in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while granting bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

The Court noted that the accused was 20 years old while the victim was 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident.

It further took note of documents showing that the two were in an intimate and romantic relationship for several months prior to the incident.

“The Court cannot ignore the young age of both the applicant as well as the victim. The documents on record show the intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim,” the Court observed.

It also noted that in her initial statement recorded by the police, the victim had stated that she had left her house on her own accord and that she did not want to make any complaint against anyone.

“These facts cannot be disregarded and serve as mitigating factors which tilts the balance towards grant of bail to the applicant,” the Court held.

The Court was dealing with the accused's third regular bail application in connection with an FIR registered in July 2023 under Sections 363, 368, 376, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act.

The FIR was initially registered pursuant to a missing complaint lodged by the victim's father after his minor daughter went missing on July 28, 2023.

The victim was traced on July 30, 2023. During her initial statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, she stated that she had left home after being scolded by her mother and had gone to her maternal aunt's house. She stated that she had no complaint against anyone.

However, subsequently, the victim alleged that the accused had kept her against her will and sexually assaulted her.

On this, the Court noted that the victim had consequently given different statements on different dates. It also noted that the victim had posted photographs of herself with the accused on Instagram and had expressed her love for him through social media posts.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, stressing upon the gravity of the allegations and submitting that consent was irrelevant in cases under the POCSO Act.

Granting bail, the Court noted that the accused had already spent more than three years in custody.

“The Court cannot ignore the young age of both the applicant as well as the victim. The documents on record show the intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim. Further, in her initial statement the victim stated in categorical terms that she had left the house on her own accord and that she did not want to make any complaint against anyone. These facts cannot be disregarded and serve as mitigating factors which tilts the balance towards grant of bail to the applicant,” the Court said.

It noted that there were 19 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only the victim and her father had been examined.

“Therefore, the Trial would take time to conclude. Additionally, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant and the victim do not reside in the same locality but far away in different parts of the city,” the Court concluded.

The Court accordingly granted bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Ra. 30,000, with one surety of the like amount.

The accused was directed to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, provide his residential details to the investigating officer, keep his mobile number operational and report to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9 AM.

He has also been directed not to threaten, induce or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with evidence.

The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial or be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.