The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of facilitating an alleged sexual assault by bolting a door from the outside, leaving a minor prosecutrix and a male associate alone in a room. The Court observed that given the established romantic relationship between the minor and the male, the accused woman’s role was, prima facie, restricted to giving them privacy, with no material showing she knew any forcible sexual assault would occur.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Ms. Zainab Khatoon, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 91/2026 registered at PS Dayalpur. The case was registered under Sections 64(1) (punishment for rape), 351 (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 6 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Offences (POCSO) Act.
According to the allegations, the prosecutrix, who was nearing the age of majority, frequented the applicant’s house to learn the art of mehendi. A youth, “M” (identified as a Child in Conflict with Law), also visited the residence. The applicant allegedly assured the prosecutrix that she would arrange her marriage with M.
On an unspecified date, while the prosecutrix was learning mehendi art, the applicant allegedly called M to her home and sent him into the room where the prosecutrix was sitting. The applicant then bolted the door from the outside, during which M allegedly forced himself upon the prosecutrix. After the incident, the applicant allegedly unbolted the door, assisted M in fleeing, and threatened the prosecutrix against disclosing the matter. It was further alleged that on February 17, 2026, M again raped the prosecutrix at her residence when her mother was away, leading to the lodging of the FIR on February 27, 2026.
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the relationship between M and the prosecutrix was consensual, noting that both individuals were nearing the age of majority. He contended that the only role attributed to the applicant was bolting the door from the outside to leave them alone. He further pointed out that no specific date of the alleged incident was disclosed and prayed that the applicant not be subjected to arrest.
Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), assisted by the Investigating Officer SI Ritu Singh, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that the allegations were of a highly serious nature, as the applicant actively encouraged the relationship between M and the prosecutrix. The APP emphasized that even if M and the prosecutrix shared close relations, it did not justify forcible sexual intercourse.
The learned counsel for the prosecutrix, who appeared alongside the prosecutrix in person, also strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of the severity of the offence.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the applicant and the prosecutrix resided in the same building. The Court also took note of the prosecutrix’s recent medical examination, which opined that “sexual assault cannot be ruled out.” However, the Court remarked that “no parameters have been mentioned in the MLC, which made the doctor opine so vaguely.”
Regarding the role of the applicant, the Court noted that she bolted the door to leave the prosecutrix and M alone to give them “private space.”
The Court acknowledged that while the consent of the prosecutrix would be legally immaterial due to her minority status under the POCSO Act, her version must still be tested considering she was nearing the age of majority.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the applicant placed six photographs of the prosecutrix and M on record, which were shown to the prosecutor, the prosecutrix, and her counsel. The Court observed that the photographs clearly depicted M and the prosecutrix, leaving “no doubt about their romantic relationship.”
Addressing the crucial legal boundary of consent in relationships, Justice Kathpalia observed:
“Of course, romantic relationship does not give license to forcible sexual intercourse. But so far as the present accused/applicant is concerned, going by these pictures and the kind of relationship M and the prosecutrix shared with each other, the role of the accused/applicant appears to be at the most, giving them some privacy in the room.”
The Court further noted:
“Prima facie, there is no material at present to show that the accused/applicant was aware that M would forcibly carry out sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.”
The Decision
Taking into account the applicant’s gender and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court held that it was not a fit case to deprive her of her liberty.
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, Ms. Zainab Khatoon shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. The applicant was also directed to join the investigation as and when required in writing by the Investigating Officer.
The Court concluded by clarifying that none of the observations made in the bail order shall prejudice either side during the final stage of the trial.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ms. Zainab Khatoon v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1519/2026
- Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
- Date of Decision: May 25, 2026
