Anticipatory bail may be granted in close-in-age consensual relationships involving allegations of abetment and sexual offences.

The applicant, a 19-year-old student, sought anticipatory bail regarding the suicide of a minor classmate on January 26, 2025

The FIR was registered on February 6, 2025, after the complainant found objectionable media and call logs on the deceased’s phone

Charges were subsequently added under Section 108 of the BNS (Abetment of Suicide), Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 67A/67B of the IT Act

Further investigation revealed the pair had visited a hotel using forged documents, leading to additional charges under Sections 338 and 238 of the BNS

The applicant was initially declared a proclaimed offender but later joined the investigation under interim protection

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail

It relied on Asha Dubey v. State of M.P. and Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., which establish that being an absconder is not an absolute bar to anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances

Regarding the POCSO Act, the Court applied factors from Dharmander Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the age gap, familial relationship, and de facto consent in adolescent relationships

It further noted the Supreme Court’s observations in State of U.P. v. Anurudh regarding the need to avoid over-criminalizing consensual, close-in-age "Romeo-Juliet" relationships

The Court observed that the applicant and deceased were close in age (a gap of less than eight months) and were school classmates in a consensual relationship

Regarding abetment (Section 108 BNS), the Court found that while WhatsApp chats showed relationship discord, they did not prima facie establish instigation or a direct nexus to the suicide

Although the State alleged the transmission of obscene media, it admitted there was no evidence of circulation to third parties

The Court dismissed the State's plea for custodial interrogation based on a "damaged" mobile phone, noting the applicant had already joined the investigation and handed over his device

Given the applicant's youth and the "exceptional" nature of adolescent relationships, the Court determined that the risk of custody outweighed the necessity of detention

The application was allowed, directing that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 35,000 with two sureties

The applicant must report to the IO as required, remain within the NCT of Delhi unless permitted otherwise, and refrain from contacting the complainant’s family