The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has denied bail to Mohd. Rafayat Ali, accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl under the pretext of marriage. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing the bail application in BAIL APPLN. 4330/2024, reiterated that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant.
Background of the Case
The case originated from FIR No. 0415/2024, registered on May 17, 2024, at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy under Sections 376 (rape) and 313 (causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The complaint was filed by the parents of the victim, a 16-year-old girl, after she underwent a medical examination confirming pregnancy.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, a 26-year-old married man, had developed a relationship with the victim over several months. The victim claimed that the accused engaged in physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage and later provided her with medication that led to the termination of her pregnancy. The forensic investigation corroborated these allegations, leading to the filing of a chargesheet.
Legal Issues
Determination of Age of the Prosecutrix: The defense questioned the validity of the school records relied upon by the prosecution, arguing that no supporting documents substantiated the victim’s date of birth.
Consent in Sexual Relations: The defense contended that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual, thus negating the charges under the POCSO Act.
Delay in Lodging the FIR: The accused’s counsel, Ms. Tanya Agarwal, argued that the FIR was filed six days after the alleged incident and was signed by the victim’s mother, not the victim herself, raising concerns of coercion.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the bail application, making crucial observations regarding the applicability of the POCSO Act and the weight of school records in determining the age of the victim:
On the Issue of Age: The court noted that the school admission register confirmed the victim’s date of birth as August 3, 2008, making her 15 years and 7 months old at the time of the incident. The court held that under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, school records serve as a legally accepted document for determining age unless rebutted with substantive proof.
On Consent: The court ruled that consent is immaterial in cases under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that “if the victim is below 18 years of age, the law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent.”
On Delay in Filing FIR: The court found the delay in lodging the FIR justified, considering the victim’s vulnerable condition and her subsequent medical complications.
On Public Safety & Influence over Witnesses: The court acknowledged that the accused resided in close proximity to the victim and her family, raising concerns that he could attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses if released.
Observations of the Court
Justice Narula, while rejecting the plea for bail, made a strong statement on the applicability of the POCSO Act:
“The alleged consensual nature of the relationship is, therefore, prima facie irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution under the POCSO Act.”
Additionally, the court took note of medical records indicating the presence of “Retained Products of Conception (RPC),” which corroborated the allegations of forced miscarriage.
