The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a 19-year-old accused in a case involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the case prima facie appeared to be one of a romantic relationship between young individuals and expressed concern over the delay in the trial, specifically the examination of the victim.
Case Background
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 495/2023 registered at Police Station Budh Vihar. The FIR was lodged by the victim’s mother, alleging that her daughter had been kidnapped on November 26, 2023. The victim was subsequently recovered from Murshidabad, West Bengal.
Following her recovery, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she alleged that the accused took her to West Bengal against her will, sexually assaulted her resulting in pregnancy, and solemnized a marriage with her. Consequently, charges under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.), 344 (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, were invoked.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Madhav Suri, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the accused and the victim were in a romantic relationship. He highlighted that at the time of the arrest, the accused was 19 years old, while the victim was 17. The counsel contended that the marriage was solemnized with the knowledge of both families and that the victim had cohabited with the accused in Kolkata by mutual consent.
The defense further emphasized the delay in the trial, pointing out that the petitioner had been in custody since February 7, 2024. It was submitted that the victim was partly examined-in-chief on November 30, 2024, but her examination had not been concluded despite several opportunities, for reasons not attributable to the petitioner.
Opposing the bail plea, Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State, argued that the offences were grave in nature and were committed with the assistance of the accused’s parents. He stressed that the victim’s examination-in-chief remained incomplete.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vikas Mahajan scrutinized the chargesheet and noted that the victim had previously gone missing in September 2023, leading to an earlier FIR, but had returned safely. Regarding the present incident, the Court noted the circumstances under which the victim left her mother at a bus stand and boarded a bus, observing:
“However, the manner in which the victim voluntarily ran and boarded a bus leaving her mother behind at the bus stand, which incident became the reason for registration of present FIR, prima facie suggests that she voluntarily left her home and later joined the company of the petitioner.”
The Court acknowledged that while the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, she appeared to have “sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity.” The Bench observed:
“It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim was kept captive and had no opportunity to run and come back to her parents or to contact local police. Thus, it, prima facie, appears to be the case of romantic relationship between the petitioner and victim at an age of innocence.”
Referring to the intent of the POCSO Act, the Court cited its previous decision in Ajay Kumar vs State Govt. of NCT and Anr, reiterating that the Act “was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young individuals.”
The Court also referred to the coordinate bench judgment in Dharmander Singh vs. State regarding the considerations for bail post-charge under the POCSO Act. Justice Mahajan noted that statements of co-accused persons, who were not chargesheeted, indicated that the victim lived happily with the petitioner as his wife, which “tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner” at this stage.
A significant factor in the Court’s decision was the delay in the trial. The Court reproduced the trial court’s order sheets, which revealed that the victim’s examination had been deferred multiple times since November 2024 due to the unavailability of the Investigating Officer or the victim’s ill health.
“Clearly, more than one year has elapsed since the victim was first examined-in-chief in part and thereafter, the examination-in-chief could not be concluded for the reasons not attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner continues to languish in jail on account of delayed trial.”
Decision
Considering the prima facie nature of the relationship, the age of the parties, and the delay in the trial, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount.
The Court imposed conditions, including that the petitioner shall not communicate with the victim or witnesses and must appear before the Trial Court as required.
