Delhi High Court grants bail in POCSO case, citing victim’s stated wish to marry accused and their continued contact

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in a case alleging offences under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, then aged 27, sexually assaulted the 16-year-old victim on multiple occasions and threatened her; the victim’s statements supported the allegations, and forensic examination of the petitioner’s phone recovered explicit material, though the victim was not identifiable in it.

The petitioner denied a physical relationship and relied, among other matters, on the medical report, hotel records and the absence of a TIP.

The medical report recorded mutual intercourse in July 2025 with condom use; the victim had declined an internal examination, and call records showed regular contact between the two.

The victim had been examined and cross-examined, while the trial remained in progress with 21 witnesses in total.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had been in custody since 8 September 2025 and for more than one year, although it also referred to a nominal roll dated 23 April 2026 recording 7 months and 15 days in custody.

Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail pending trial, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the evidence and the period of custody.

Whether the alleged consensual relationship, the victim’s statements and the other circumstances supported bail despite the POCSO charge.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The case involved charges under Sections 137(2), 64(1) and 351(2) BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, for the observations that POCSO proceedings may be misapplied in cases involving adolescent romantic relationships and that courts should consider the case-specific context, the victim’s statement, age and the risk of unjust outcomes; the Supreme Court’s discussion included a recommendation to consider a “Romeo-Juliet” clause, not an enacted exemption.

The Court also relied on Riyaz v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5918, which considered the alleged romantic relationship, the accused’s custody and the stage of trial in deciding bail in a POCSO case.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the medical report recording intercourse with condom use, the parties’ regular contact, the victim’s evidence that she was friends with the petitioner and had expressed a wish to marry him, and her cross-examination concerning her parents’ opposition to the relationship.

It also considered that the victim had been examined and cross-examined, the petitioner had spent more than one year in custody, the trial remained ongoing with 21 witnesses, his jail conduct was satisfactory and he had no criminal antecedents.

Applying the cited decisions in the bail context, the Court found a prima facie basis for release, without determining whether the offences were proved or expressing a view on the trial’s merits.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and should not influence the trial.