The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, has granted regular bail to a 27-year-old man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, after noting that the minor victim had expressed a desire to marry him and that criminal proceedings arose amid parental opposition to their relationship. The Court held that the facts and circumstances, coupled with the victim’s cross-examination and an incarceration period exceeding one year, established a prima facie ground for extending bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from FIR No. 461/2025 registered on September 6, 2025, at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, North East Delhi, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) alongside Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
According to the status report submitted by the State, the victim alleged that she became acquainted with the petitioner, Rohit, in April 2025 via Instagram as he resided in her neighbourhood. She alleged that on July 17, 2025, the petitioner brought her to his friend’s house in Ashok Nagar on the pretext of celebrating his birthday and committed forcible sexual intercourse, followed by threats to kill her and her siblings if she disclosed the incident. She further alleged that on August 18, 2025, under threats of disclosure to her family, she was taken to an OYO Hotel in Loni, where he again subjected her to sexual assault and recorded an explicit video.
During investigation, the victim underwent an examination at Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, where her mother refused an internal examination. The victim’s school documents confirmed she was a minor at the time of the incident. A forensic examination of the petitioner’s mobile phone recovered multiple sexually explicit photos and videos, though the victim was not visible in any of the seized media. Additionally, Call Detail Records (CDR) revealed regular contact between both parties from August 22, 2025, until September 2, 2025. The petitioner was arrested on September 8, 2025.
Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he never engaged in any physical or intimate relationship with the victim, pointing out that no external or internal injuries were recorded during her medical examination. The defense argued that specific grounds of arrest were never supplied.
The defense further highlighted statements by co-accused Raj Kumar alias Babloo, who stated that when the petitioner visited his house on July 17, 2025, the petitioner introduced the accompanying girl as his fiancée so they could talk, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to verify whether the visitor was the victim. Furthermore, inspection of the OYO Hotel register in Loni revealed that on August 20, 2025, the petitioner had checked in with a 22-year-old woman named Jyoti, rather than the victim.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for the victim submitted that specific grounds of arrest had been furnished. They argued that the 27-year-old applicant faced grave allegations involving a 16-year-old minor across multiple incidents. The complainant’s counsel emphasized that the victim had remained consistent in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, that hotel records and the petitioner’s Aadhaar card established his presence, and that the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge-06, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, remained at a nascent stage.
The Court’s Analysis and Precedents
In evaluating the evidence, Justice Pushkarna noted that the Medical Examination Report dated September 6, 2025, recorded that the petitioner and the victim had engaged in mutual sexual intercourse in July 2025 using a contraceptive condom, with no history of drug intoxication.
The Court observed that CDR analysis demonstrated continuous communication between the parties, and the victim had confirmed that the petitioner regularly picked her up and dropped her off at her tuition center. Crucially, during her cross-examination in the ongoing trial, the victim testified that upon her parents discovering their relationship, she had expressed a wish to marry the petitioner, but her father and uncle objected on grounds of his past, unemployment, and the age disparity.
Discussing the broader legal framework, the High Court drew reference to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Anurudh and Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 40), which observed that the POCSO Act is frequently deployed to curb consensual teenage relationships opposed by families, and underscored proposals for a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause. The Supreme Court had observed:
“The POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion.”
The High Court also referred to a Coordinate Bench ruling in Riyaz Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5918), which addressed similar complexities in consensual adolescent relationships and observed:
“This Court has been constantly seeing that POCSO cases are being filed at the behest of the girl’s family who object to her friendship and romantic involvement with a young boy and the law is being misapplied in such cases which results in young boys, who have genuinely fallen in love with young adolescent girls, languishing in jails.”
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the victim had already concluded her examination and cross-examination before the trial court. The applicant had been in custody for more than one year since September 8, 2025, the nominal roll showed satisfactory jail conduct, he had no prior criminal antecedents, and 21 witnesses remained to be examined in an ongoing trial likely to take considerable time.
The Court observed:
“Accordingly, the facts and circumstances of the present case disclose a prima facie basis to grant bail. Further, the Nominal Roll records the petitioner’s conduct as satisfactory. The Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the bail application and ordered Rohit’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.
The release was conditioned on several stringent directives:
- The petitioner must cooperate with any further investigation as directed by the Investigating Officer (IO).
- He shall not tamper with evidence or threaten or induce any person connected to the case.
- He is strictly prohibited from contacting the victim or her family members.
- He must not reside within a 5-kilometer radius of the victim’s residence, must provide proof of his address to the IO, and must not move in her vicinity.
- He must keep his mobile phone operational at all times after sharing the number with police authorities and report to the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined solely to the determination of bail and would not operate as an opinion on the final merits of the trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Rohit v. State
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1241/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9714/2026, 17089/2026 & 30989-30990/2026
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
