Raj Mahto vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

$~P-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 29.04.2026
Pronounced on: 15.05.2026
Uploaded on: 15.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025
RAJ MAHATO ......Applicant
Through: Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, Advocate
(through VC).

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
with
Insp. Manish Bhati, P.S.Bhalswa
Dairy.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh,
Advocate for the complainant, with
the complainant in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the applicant
seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 98/2025, dated
06.02.2025, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 [“BNS”], at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, District Outer North,
Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 1 of 15

A. P ROSECUTION CASE AND ORDERS PASSED IN THE APPLICATION
2. The subject FIR was registered on 06.02.2025 in respect of the
unfortunate death by suicide of the complainant‟s daughter. The incident
took place on 26.01.2025. As stated in the FIR, the complainant initially
did not suspect anyone; however, upon checking the mobile phone of the
deceased, it was revealed that she had been in contact with the applicant.
The applicant was a classmate of the deceased - they were both students
of Class XII in Sarvodaya Co-Ed Vidyalaya No.1, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, at
the time of the incident. He and his sister were friends of the deceased
and used to visit her home. It was alleged that the applicant had sent
objectionable photographs and videos to the deceased on 25.01.2025, and
that the two remained in telephonic contact on 26.01.2025 from 05:47
A.M. until the deceased committed suicide in the afternoon. The
complainant also produced the mobile phone of the deceased, which
contained a video of the applicant putting a mangalsutra on the deceased,
alongwith other objectionable photographs and videos. It was, therefore,
alleged that the applicant had harassed the deceased, as a result of which
she committed suicide.
3. Notice was issued in this application on 08.08.2025, pursuant to
which a status report was filed by the prosecution on 22.08.2025. It was
stated therein that the mobile phone of the deceased had been sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”], but the results were awaited. In
view of the deceased‟s date of birth, recorded as 16.07.2007, allegations
under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 [“POCSO Act”], and Sections 67A/67B of the Information
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 2 of 15

Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”], were also added. It was further stated
that the applicant had not joined the investigation and had been declared a
proclaimed offender on 10.07.2025.

4. By order dated 01.09.2025, this Court granted interim protection
against coercive steps, subject to the applicant joining the investigation.
The submissions before the Court and reasoning of the Court are
extracted hereinbelow:
“3. Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a young boy aged about 18 years and a student of
th
class 12 ,having clean antecedents. It is argued that he has been
falsely implicated and there is no material to indicate any direct
abetment of suicide or that the petitioner forced or harassed the
deceased in any manner.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner and the deceased were in
aconsensual relationship. It is also submitted that there is an
unexplained delay in registration of the FIR as the unfortunate incident
occurred on 26.01.2025 and the FIR was registered on 06.02.2025. It
is stated that the petitioner has given complaints to the DCP seeking
call detail records to verify facts, and he is ready and willing to join
investigation and cooperate fully. The petitioner undertakes to abide
by all conditions that may beimposed by this Court.
5. Per Contra, learned APP for the State opposes the present
anticipatory bail application and submits that custodial interrogation
is necessary to unearth the truth and verify the allegations in the FIR.
It is stated that the police need to ascertain whether any private or
objectionable content was disseminated in public, which could attract
further penal provisions. However, as per the status report filed by the
State, it is not shown at this stage that the applicant has circulated the
videos or photos inpublic or on social media. It is also submitted that
the petitioner has not joined investigation and has been declared PO in
the present case.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both sides and
has perused the material on record, including the FIR, status report,
and pleadings in the application.
7. It is noted that the allegations, though serious in nature, are yet to
be substantiated by technical or forensic evidence. As of now, there is
no material on record to show that the petitioner has shared any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 3 of 15

content in public. Further, there is no explanation as regards tothe
delay in registrationof the FIR.
8. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is a young boy of tender
age, currently studying in Class 12, and has no previous criminal
antecedents. He is a permanent resident of Delhi and there is no
apprehension of him fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or
influencing witnesses. Insofar the averment made by the learned APP
that the petitioner has been declared PO is concerned, the same is also
not a material factor to be considered at this stage in light of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Dubey v.
1
State of M.P . Relevant paras of the same are as under:

“8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the
event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it
is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo
on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory
bail.
9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this
Court will have to see the circumstances of the case,
nature of the offence and the background based on which
such a proclamation was issued…”

9. Given his age and background, the Court is mindful of the long-term
implications that any adverse order at this stage may have on his
academic and personal life. Moreover, the fact that both the petitioner
and the deceased were of tender age and were reportedly in a
relationship is also a relevant factor. The petitioner has expressed his
willingness to join investigation and cooperate with the police.
10. In light of the above, subject to the petitioner/applicant joining
investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer, no
coercive steps shall be taken against him, till the next date of
hearing .”

5. By order dated 23.02.2026, further directions were issued, in the
following terms:
“ 2. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
submits that, although the applicant had initially joined the
investigation, he has failed to respond to two subsequent notices issued
by the Investigating Officer. He accordingly submits that peremptory

1
Criminal Appeal No. 4564/2024, decided on 12.11.2024, [hereinafter, “ Asha Dubey ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 4 of 15

directions may be issued to ensure the applicant’s continued
cooperation with the investigation.
3. Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, states that
the applicant remains ready and willing to cooperate with the
investigation and shall join as required. She, however, submits that he
travelled to Bihar two days ago on account of his father’s illness.
4. In view of the above, the applicant is directed to report to the
Investigating Officer on 25.02.2026 at 11:00 A.M., and to extend
cooperation with the investigation thereafter, as and when required by
the Investigating Officer.
5. The interim protection granted to the applicant shall continue till the
next date of hearing, subject to his compliance with the aforesaid
direction.
6. It is made clear that the applicant shall remain within the NCT of
Delhi. He shall furnish his mobile phone number to the Investigating
Officer, and ensure that the same remains switched on and in working
condition at all times. The applicant shall also disclose his current
residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall reside at the
said address.
7. The Investigating Officer is directed to place on record an updated
Status Report on the next date of hearing, indicating the progress of the
investigation.
8. The Investigating Officer shall also take necessary steps to expedite
the FSL report in respect of the mobile phone of the deceased. ”

6. In terms of the aforesaid order, an updated status report was filed
by the prosecution on 23.03.2026. It was stated therein that, during the
course of investigation, it was found that the applicant and the deceased
had visited a hotel named Z Black on three occasions (26.11.2023,
21.02.2024, and 30.10.2024) and had registered at the hotel on the basis
of forged documents, leading to the addition of Section 338 of the BNS.
It was also alleged that the applicant had produced an iPhone on which he
had allegedly made videos with the deceased; however, the phone was in
a damaged condition, as a result of which Section 238 of the BNS was
also added to the case.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 5 of 15

7. During the course of investigation, other witnesses were also
examined, one of whom stated that the deceased and the applicant were in
a relationship, but the applicant had cheated her by developing physical
relations with another girl. It was further alleged that the deceased had
informed the witness on 25.01.2025 that she and the applicant had
established physical relations on that date at her residence. According to
the prosecution, the mobile phone in which the videos were recorded is
yet to be recovered.
B. S UBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
8. Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, advanced
the following submissions:
a. The applicant is a 19-year-old student with clean antecedents,
residing with his family in Delhi, and has been falsely implicated
in the present case, on the basis of an afterthought.
b. There is no material to establish any act of instigation, provocation,
or abetment of suicide by the applicant, and the allegations are
vague and omnibus in nature. The applicant and the deceased were
of similar age and were in a consensual relationship.
c. The incident occurred on 26.01.2025, whereas the FIR was
registered only on 06.02.2025, and no allegations were made
against the applicant at the initial stage, thereby rendering the
subsequent implication an afterthought.
d. The applicant had cordial relations with the family of the deceased,
and was even called by the complainant on the date of the incident
to check on the deceased, as the deceased was not picking up her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 6 of 15

phone. He remained present even during the last rites. It is only
thereafter, upon checking the mobile phone of the deceased, that
the present complaint came to be lodged.

e. Even the material relied upon by the prosecution does not disclose
any offence of abetment, inasmuch as there is no nexus between
the applicant and the act of suicide. The alleged videos were
recorded by the deceased herself, she being visible holding the
camera, and there is no material to show any circulation thereof by
the applicant.
f. The deceased was subjected to physical aggression by her own
family members, including her elder brother, as they objected to
the relationship between the applicant and the deceased. This
constitutes a relevant circumstance bearing upon the cause of the
unfortunate incident.
g. The applicant has joined the investigation pursuant to interim
protection granted by this Court on 01.09.2025, has handed over
his mobile phone, and has cooperated with the Investigating
Agency. However, he and his family members have been subjected
to undue harassment, affecting his studies as well as that of his
younger sister.
h. The investigation conducted thus far does not indicate any role of
the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence, and mere
recovery of photographs/videos, without any accompanying
material demonstrating instigation or cruelty, cannot sustain an
allegation under Section 108 of the BNS.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 7 of 15

9. Per contra , Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, opposed the application and submitted as
follows:

a. The material collected during investigation, including the FSL
report, indicates that the applicant had recorded and transmitted
obscene/intimate photographs and videos to the deceased through
WhatsApp on 25.01.2025, i.e., one day prior to the incident.
Although Mr. Chauhan accepted that there is no material to show
that the alleged video was circulated by the applicant to any third
person, he contended that this cannot be treated as determinative
for the grant of anticipatory bail, having regard to the overall facts
and circumstances of the case.
b. The applicant was in continuous communication with the deceased
for a prolonged duration immediately preceding her death, and the
chats reveal that he suspected her of being in a relationship with
one “Amit”, which circumstance assumes significance in the
context of the suicide taking place soon thereafter.
c. The applicant had established physical relations with the deceased,
including on 25.01.2025, when he was an adult and she was a
minor, and had recorded such acts, thereby attracting serious
offences under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 67A/67B
of the IT Act.
d. The applicant had stayed with the deceased in Hotel Z Black on
multiple occasions and had used forged identity documents for
entry, which led to the addition of further penal provisions during
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 8 of 15

the investigation.
e. The applicant has not cooperated with the investigation in its true
sense, inasmuch as he initially failed to join the investigation, was
declared a proclaimed offender, and, upon joining investigation,
produced a damaged mobile phone instead of the device used for
recording the videos, thereby derailing the investigation.
f. Recovery of the actual mobile phone used for recording the videos,
as well as forged identity documents, is yet to be effected, and
custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for that
purpose.
g. The applicant is a resident of Nepal and may leave India, thereby
raising a reasonable apprehension of flight risk.
h. In these circumstances, the allegations are grave in nature,
involving exploitation of a minor and acts immediately preceding
her death, and the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief
of anticipatory bail.

10. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant
(mother of the deceased), adopted the submissions of the State and, in
addition, submitted as follows:
a. The applicant was simultaneously involved in relationships with
other girls, which reflects his conduct and has a bearing on the
mental distress of the deceased.
b. It was contended that the applicant had boasted about his
relationship with the deceased before others and had shown such
videos to his friends, thereby aggravating the humiliation and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 9 of 15

distress caused to the deceased.
NALYSIS
C. A
11. The present case undoubtedly concerns serious allegations of
abetment of suicide and sexual offences pertaining to a minor. However,
even in cases of alleged offences under the POCSO Act, the Court does
exercise discretion to grant bail in appropriate cases. A coordinate Bench
2
of this Court in Dharmander Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ,
identified several factors which the Court would consider in such a
situation:
“77. Though the heinousness of the offence alleged will beget the length
of sentence after trial, in order to give due weightage to the intent and
purpose of the Legislature in engrafting section 29 in this special
statute to protect children from sexual offences, while deciding a bail
plea at the post-charge stage, in addition to the nature and quality of
the evidence before it, the court would also factor in certain real life
considerations, illustrated below, which would tilt the balance against
or in favour of the accused:
a. the age of the minor victim: the younger the victim, the
more heinous the offence alleged;
b. the age of the accused: the older the accused, the more
heinous the offence alleged;
c. the comparative age of the victim and the accused: the
more their age difference, the more the element of
perversion in the offence alleged;
d. the familial relationship, if any, between the victim and
the accused: the closer such relationship, the more odious
the offence alleged;
e. whether the offence alleged involved threat,
intimidation, violence and/or brutality;
f. the conduct of the accused after the offence, as alleged;
g. whether the offence was repeated against the victim; or
whether the accused is a repeat offender under the POCSO
Act or otherwise;
h. whether the victim and the accused are so placed that
the accused would have easy access to the victim, if

2
2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 10 of 15

enlarged on bail: the more the access, greater the
reservation in granting bail;
i. the comparative social standing of the victim and the
accused: this would give insight into whether the accused
is in a dominating position to subvert the trial;
j. whether the offence alleged was perpetrated when the
victim and the accused were at an age of innocence: an
innocent, though unholy, physical alliance may be looked
at with less severity;
k. whether it appears there was tacit approval-in-fact,
though not consent-in-law, for the offence alleged;
l. whether the offence alleged was committed alone or
along with other persons, acting in a group or otherwise;
m. other similar real-life considerations.

78. The above factors are some cardinal considerations, though far
from exhaustive, that would guide the court in assessing the
egregiousness of the offence alleged; and in deciding which way the
balance would tilt. At the end of the day however, considering the
myriad facets and nuances of real-life situations, it is impossible to
cast in stone all considerations for grant or refusal of bail in light of
section 29. The grant or denial of bail will remain, as always, in the
subjective satisfaction of a court; except that in view of section 29,
when a bail plea is being considered after charges have been framed,
the above additional factors should be considered.
79. It goes without saying that while considering a bail plea at any
stage, whether before or after framing of charges, the court would of
course apply all the other well settled principles and parameters for
grant or denial of bail.”

12. While consent is legally irrelevant in cases involving offences
under the POCSO Act, this Court has thus recognised that relationships
among young adults, where there may have been de facto approval of
both participants for a sexual relationship, however misguided, must be
treated on a different footing. The Supreme Court in its recent decision in
3
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. acknowledged the recurring
invocation of the POCSO Act in cases involving genuine adolescent

3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 40.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 11 of 15

relationships, and recommended that the Government consider
introducing a „ Romeo-Juliet clause’ to prevent over-criminalisation of
consensual close-in-age relationships.

13. Applying these factors to the present case, the record shows that the
applicant himself was just over 18 years old at the time of the unfortunate
demise of the deceased. The difference in the ages of the two was less
than eight months, the date of birth of the applicant being 28.11.2006 and
that of the deceased being 16.07.2007. They were classmates in the same
school and, according to the applicant, were in a consensual relationship.
14. In support of the allegation with regard to abetment of suicide, Mr.
Chauhan has relied upon extensive communications between the
applicant and the deceased in the day or two immediately preceding her
death. Copies of the WhatsApp conversations, extracted from the mobile
phone of the deceased, form part of the case diary, which was produced
in Court. The significance of the contents of the conversations, and the
inferences to be drawn therefrom, would have to be examined at trial. At
this stage, suffice it to state that the conversations prima facie reveal
some discord in the relationship and allegations against each other.
However, it cannot be stated at this stage, that they constitute abetment to
suicide. As far as the circulation of objectionable photographs and videos
is concerned, the same were part of the conversation between the two
individuals themselves, and Mr. Chauhan has clearly stated that there is
no evidence of the applicant having forwarded them to any third person.
15. Having regard to these factors, particularly the young age of the
applicant, I am of the view that the interim protection granted to him by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 12 of 15

order dated 01.09.2025 is liable to be confirmed. On the basis of the
material on record, I do not consider this to be a fit case to render a 19-
year-old individual exposed to the risk of custody, with all its
ramifications.
16. The fact that the applicant was declared a proclaimed offender, as
argued by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, was specifically
considered vide order dated 01.09.2025, and interim protection was
nonetheless granted, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Asha Dubey . In its recent judgment in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State
4
of Madhya Pradesh & Anr . also, the Supreme Court has recognised that,
in exceptional cases, an absconder may also be granted anticipatory bail.
This Court has thus already held that the present case is an exceptional
one, in which the Court‟s discretion may be exercised in favour of the
applicant.
17. Coming to the allegation of non-cooperation in the investigation, it
is the applicant‟s case that he has handed over the mobile phone, which
he was using at the relevant time, to the police. The applicant cannot be
accused of non-cooperation on the ground that he has not handed over a
different phone, which he denies having used. Therefore, I do not
consider the allegation to be such as to require vacation of the order of
interim protection at this stage.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, it is directed that, in the event of arrest,
in connection with FIR No. 98/2025, dated 06.02.2025, registered under
Section 108 of the BNS at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, District Outer

4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 205, paragraph 44.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 13 of 15

North, Delhi, the applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing
a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- with two local sureties in the
like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer
[“IO”]/Station House Officer [“SHO”], and subject to the following
conditions:
a) The applicant will report to the IO on each and every occasion, as
required by the IO, and will cooperate in the investigation,
b) The applicant will not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi
[“NCTD”] without prior intimation to the IO, and the IO will also
be intimated of the applicant‟s itinerary and place of residence at
the destination. The applicant‟s absence from the NCTD should not
exceed the period of seven days at a time.
c) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, attempt to contact the
complainant or her family, or tamper with the evidence, or
otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or
prejudicial to the proceedings, nor shall he offer any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case.
d) The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO and shall keep the said mobile phone operational and
switched on at all times. The mobile number shall not be changed or
switched off without prior intimation to the IO/SHO.
e) The applicant shall furnish his complete residential address to the
IO/SHO, and will not change his residential address without prior
intimation to the IO.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 14 of 15

f) The applicant shall not commit any offence during the pendency of
these proceedings.
18. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.

PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 15, 2026
Jishnu/

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:BHUPENDER
Signing Date:15.05.2026
20:00
BAIL APPLN. 3007/2025 Page 15 of 15