Shyam Lal Yadav vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010304352026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2714/2026
SHYAM LAL YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kshitij Gaur, Mr. Devanand
Kumar, Mr. Shahid Raza, Mr.
Sachidanand and Mr. Abhinav Gaur,
Advs.
Mob: 8920506798
Email: [email protected]
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
the State.
(M): 9871349009
Email:
[email protected]
Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Standing
Counsel, Delhi High Court Legal
Services Authority (“DHCLSC”),
along with Ms. Arushi and Ms.
Shruti, Advs. for Victim
Mob: 987199212 & +011-41414498
Email: [email protected]
W/SI Rukuvenie, PS Wazirabad.
(M): 7005090487
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 1 of 13
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the applicant, namely,
Mr. Shyam Lal Yadav, S/o Mr. Ram Dev Yadav, under Section 483 read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”),
seeking regular bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”)
th
being FIR No. 944/2025 dated 30 November, 2025, registered under Section
137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), at Police Station
(“PS”) Wazirabad, North, Delhi.
2. The case being SC 211/2026 instituted in connection with FIR No.
944/2025 , is pending adjudication before the Additional Sessions Judge FTSC
(POSCO)-2, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, and is presently at the stage of
prosecution evidence.
3. This Court has been informed that the petitioner had earlier moved an
application before the Sessions Court seeking regular bail in respect of the
present FIR. The said application came to be rejected by the Additional
Sessions Judge FTSC (POSCO)-2, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, vide
th
order dated 30 June, 2026.
Brief Facts
4. As per the material on record, the case set up by the prosecution is as
follows:
th
4.1 On 29 November, 2025, the complainant, i.e., the father, submitted a
written complaint stating that his daughter, i.e., the victim, aged about 17
years and 6 months had been missing since 04:00 PM on that date. Premised
on this statement of the complainant, FIR No. 944/2025 came to be lodged.
th
4.2 During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered on 13
January, 2026, from village Nahar Singh, IMT Mansarovar, Haryana , in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 2 of 13
company of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, her medical examination was
conducted.
4.3 The statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS came to be
recorded, wherein, she stated that she had become acquainted with the
petitioner sometime around May, 2024, through the social media platform –
Instagram, after which they started talking regularly and met several times.
th
4.4 She further stated that on 29 November, 2025, she voluntarily went
with the petitioner from Kashmere Gate Metro Station to Bihar and that they
stayed together for about 20-25 days. She also stated that she made consensual
physical relationship with the petitioner.
4.5 Subsequently, upon completion of the investigation, a Chargesheet
rd
came to be filed by the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”) on 23
February, 2026, under Sections 137(2)/64(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).
Submissions
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made the following
submissions:
5.1 There are no allegations against the petitioner regarding any forced
physical relationship with the victim. The petitioner is merely 22 years of age
and was in a consensual romantic relationship with the victim. This position
is corroborated by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of
the BNSS, as it does not contain any allegation of a forced sexual relationship.
Further, in the medical report, the victim has categorically referred to the
petitioner as her boyfriend.
5.2 As on 29th November, 2025, the victim was approximately 17 years
of age and the petitioner was around 22 years of age. Thus, the difference in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 3 of 13
age between the petitioner and the victim is not very huge.
5.3 If enlarged on bail, the petitioner undertakes not to abscond or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses and to join the investigation, as and when
required by the Police.
6. Rebutting the aforesaid, the following has been submitted on behalf of
the victim:
6.1 The allegations against the petitioner concern offences of an extremely
grave nature involving kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault upon a child,
which carry severe punishment under law.
6.2 The victim has specifically stated in her statement under Section 183
of the BNSS that the petitioner herein had established physical relations with
her, and the evidentiary value of the said statement as well as defence sought
by the petitioner, are matters to be adjudicated during trial and not at the stage
of bail.
6.3 The victim and her parents are primary prosecution witnesses and they
are yet to be examined. Therefore, the possibility of the petitioner influencing
or intimidating material witnesses, cannot be entirely ruled out.
6.4 The contention of the petitioner regarding consensual relationship,
cannot at this stage, constitute a ground for grant of regular bail, particularly,
when the victim was admittedly below 18 years of age at the relevant time.
6.5 The questions as to the nature of the relationship between the victim
and the petitioner, the circumstances in which the victim left her residence
and the condition in which she was subsequently traced along with the
petitioner, are matters which are required to be appreciated on the basis of
complete evidence before the Trial Court.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State submits
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 4 of 13
that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and involve serious
offences. Hence, release of the petitioner at this stage may adversely affect
the fair conduct of the trial and may give rise to a possibility of influencing
the witnesses or otherwise hampering the proceedings.
Analysis and Conclusion
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
material on record.
9. At the outset, this Court notes the statement of the victim recorded
th
under Section 183 of the BNSS on 13 January, 2026, wherein, she has stated
that she became friends with the petitioner through Instagram in 2024.
Thereafter, they started meeting each other. Furthermore, it has been
th
categorically stated that she went with the petitioner to Bihar on 29
November, 2025, out of her own choice and volition. The victim and the
petitioner stayed together at the residence of the maternal grandmother ( nani )
of the petitioner for 20-25 days. She has also stated in clear terms that she had
physical relations with the petitioner out of her own choice and without any
force or coercion.
10. Additionally, this Court takes note of the fact that in the Medical Legal
Report of the victim issued by the Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital,
th
Rajpur Road, Delhi , on 13 January, 2026, she has described the petitioner as
her boyfriend, wherein, it is explicitly recorded that there was history of
‘sexual contact with boyfriend with consent’.
11. In line with the aforesaid, the Status Report filed on behalf of the State,
stipulates as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 5 of 13
xxx xxx xxx”
12. In view of the above, it is manifest that the relationship between the
petitioner and the victim is romantic and consensual in nature. It is also to be
noted that the petitioner was 22 years of age while the victim was 17 years 6
months of age at the time of the incident. The victim has attained majority
now and is currently around 18 years and 6 months of age, while the petitioner
is currently around 24 years of age.
13. This Court also takes note of the fact that the victim, PW-1 , did not get
her evidence recorded on the last two dates of hearing before the Trial Court,
th th
i.e., on 08 August, 2026, and 18 September, 2026, and that adjournments
were taken on both the occasions.
14. Furthermore, the petitioner and the victim do not live in close
proximity, as they had met through Instagram.
st
15. The latest Nominal Roll dated 21 August, 2026, furnished by the Jail
th
Authorities, shows that the petitioner has been in custody since 13 January,
st
2026, and has undergone a period of 07 months of custody as on 21 August,
2026. In addition, the Nominal Roll also records that the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents and that his overall jail conduct has been satisfactory.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 6 of 13
16. The facts of the present case call for attention to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Anurudh and
Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40 , whereby, it has been held that the POCSO
Act has been frequently misused to suppress adolescent romantic
relationships by the families, who are in objection to such relationships. The
Supreme Court has emphasised on inclusion of a ‘ Romeo-Juliet ’ clause to
exempt such romantic relationships from the strict application of the POCSO
Act. The relevant excerpts of the said judgment are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
A NECESSITATED POST-SCRIPT
19. As the conclusions drawn above indicate the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court has to be set aside on
grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and thereby
lacking the appropriate directions. It is to be set aside also
because it goes against the statutory prescription under the JJ
Act. Be that as it may, this Court has not lost sight of the well-
intentioned purport of this order. 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. Courts have in many cases sounded alarm
regarding this situation. Misuse of the POCSO Act highlights
a grim societal chasm - on the one end children are silenced
by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or
stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and
uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with
privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to
manipulate the law to their advantage . The impugned
judgment is one amongst many where Courts have spoken out.
Not only are instances rife where the age of the victim is
misrepresented to make the incident fall under the stringent
provisions of this law but also there are numerous instances
where this law is used by families in opposition to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 7 of 13
relationships between young people. In Satish alias Chand v.
State of U.P. [ Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 18596 of 2024] , the
High Court, noted that on few occasions concern had been
expressed by the Court with respect to application of the Act
on consenting adolescence when it comes to consensual
relationships between teenagers, four factors have been
highlighted which, is crucial for the Courts to consider:
“A. Assess the Context: Each case should be evaluated
on its individual facts and circumstances. The nature of
the relationship and the intentions of both parties should
be carefully examined.
B. Consider Victim's Statement: The statement of the
alleged victim should be given due consideration. If the
relationship is consensual and based on mutual
affection, this should be factored into decisions
regarding bail and prosecution.
C. Avoid Perversity of Justice: Ignoring the consensual
nature of a relationship can lead to unjust outcomes,
such as wrongful imprisonment. The judicial system
should aim to balance the protection of minors with the
recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts. Here
the age comes out to be an important factor.
D. Judicial Discretion: Courts should use their
discretion wisely, ensuring that the application of
POCSO does not inadvertently harm the very
individuals it is meant to protect.”
[See also: Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of
U.P.] [2023: AHC : 204171]
The Delhi High Court in Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi
[2024: DHC: 6100] the Court noted in para 11 of the order
that POCSO cases filed at the behest of a girl's family
objecting to romantic involvement with a young boy have
become common place and consequent thereto these young
boys languish in jails. Therein, reference is also made to an
order of the Gujarat High Court [Jayantibhai Babulbhai
Alaniv. State of Gujarat2018 SCC OnLine Guj. 1223] , where
the Court noted that considering the closeness in age of the
prosecutrix and the accused as also the fact that she had left
home of her own accord observed that the application
deserved consideration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 8 of 13
This chasm between access and abuse is also mirrored in the
misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. Amongst numerous examples, we may only refer to
Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094] ,
where this Court lamented the use of these Sections without
specific instances or relevant details, among other cases. It is
also to be stated though that no amount of judicial vigilance
against misuse can alone bridge this ever-widening gap. The
first line of defence lies with the Bar i.e., the body that
translates grievance into action and is the gatekeeper of justice
at the point of entry. When it comes to matters such as these,
the responsibility of the advocate is profound - to examine the
allegations with detachment and necessary discretion and to
counsel restraint when grievance masks vengeance and to
refuse participation in litigation when it can be seen that an
ulterior motive is sought to be agitated under the guise of
seeking protection of the law. It is only when the Bar takes a
principled, proactive role, that the legislation intended as a
shield can be stopped from being twisted into a weapon. A
lawyer who tempers aggression with calm, reason and
rationality, protects not only the opposing party from
unwarranted harm but also the client from the long-term
consequences of frivolous or malicious litigation, including
adverse orders, and judicial censure. By taking a principled
stand, the Bar acts as a crucial filter, preventing the legal
system from being overwhelmed by abuse masquerading as
enforcement. Such self-regulation strengthens public faith in
the profession, ensures that judicial time is reserved for
genuine disputes, and reinforces the foundational idea that law
is a means of justice, not a weapon of convenience. In this
sense, the ethical vigilance of lawyers is not ancillary to justice,
it is indispensable to it. When they do not do so, the chasm
alluded to above widens. Society also must match institutional
reform with moral awakening. The intent and object of these
legislations must be at the forefront when a person wishes to
lodge a complaint thereunder. The misuse of these laws is a
mirror to the opportunistic and self-centered view that
pervades the application of law. It is only through discipline,
integrity and courage that these problems can be remedied and
rooted out. Any legislative amendment or judicial direction will
remain lack-luster without this deeper change.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 9 of 13
We have referred to certain instances of the High Courts
noting the misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act, somewhat
in line with the indices appended to the impugned judgment as
also its progenitors.
Considering the fact that repeated judicial notice has been
taken of the misuse of these laws, let a copy of this judgment
be circulated to the Secretary, Law, Government of India, to
consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this
menace inter alia, the introduction of a Romeo - Juliet clause
exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the
stronghold of this law; enacting a mechanism enabling the
prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws
seeks to settle scores etc.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. The Court also notes the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Versus Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14
SCC 496 , wherein, the Supreme Court while laying down the parameters for
granting bail, has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly
unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to
the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 10 of 13
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
[See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 1960 (2)] (SCC p. 31, para 18), Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of
Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] , and Ram Govind
Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
688] .]
xxx xxx xxx”
18. In cases of this nature on the one at hand, where the facts disclose a
consensual adolescent relationship between persons close in age, courts have
recognised that the rigours of the POCSO Act should be tempered at the stage
of bail, applying the rationale of the ‘ Romeo Juliet ’ clause, without diluting
the statutory protection afforded to children. Given these circumstances, no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody.
Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular
bail.
19. Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, the petitioner is
th
directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 944/2025 dated 30
November, 2025, registered at PS Wazirabad, North, Delhi, upon furnishing
a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, with one surety of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the
following conditions:
19.1 The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed;
19.2 The petitioner shall furnish his residential address to the IO and shall
not change the address without informing the concerned IO/Station House
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 11 of 13
Officer (“SHO”) of the local PS;
19.3 The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, attempt to contact the
victim 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;
19.4 The petitioner shall, upon his release, provide his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The
mobile number shall not be switched off or changed without prior intimation
to the IO during the pendency of the trial;
19.5 The petitioner shall report to the concerned local PS on every Monday
at 09:00 AM, and shall be released within two hours after completion of the
formalities;
19.6 The petitioner shall not reside within 05 km radius of the residence of
the victim and shall also furnish proof of his residence to the concerned IO.
The petitioner shall not move in the vicinity of the victim in any manner;
19.7 The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his
release.
20. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against
the petitioner, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an
application seeking cancellation of bail.
21. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely
for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall neither
influence the outcome of the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
22. The bail application is allowed and accordingly disposed of, in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 12 of 13
aforesaid terms.
23. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/KR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:25:14
Page 13 of 13