Delhi High Court grants bail in POCSO case involving a consensual relationship between a 17-year-old and a 22-year-old, applying the adolescent-relationship rationale

The petitioner sought regular bail under Sections 483 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in FIR No. 944/2025, registered at Police Station Wazirabad for offences under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The chargesheet also invoked Sections 64(2) BNS and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The prosecution alleged that the victim, then aged about 17 years and 6 months, went missing on 29 November 2025 and was recovered with the petitioner on 13 January 2026.

In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she said she had met the petitioner through Instagram, went with him to Bihar of her own choice, and had physical relations with him without force or coercion; the medical report recorded a history of sexual contact with her boyfriend with consent.

The petitioner’s earlier bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 30 June 2026.

The case was pending at the prosecution-evidence stage, and the victim had not been examined on the two preceding hearing dates.

Whether the petitioner had made out a case for regular bail, having regard to the victim’s statement describing a consensual adolescent relationship, the petitioner’s custody and antecedents, and the other relevant bail factors.

Whether the possibility of influencing the victim or other prosecution witnesses warranted continued detention at that stage of the trial.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail; the petition was also brought under Section 528 BNSS.

The alleged offences were under Sections 137(2) and 64(2) BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

In assessing bail, the Court relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, which identifies relevant considerations including the prima facie case, gravity and severity of the offence, risk of absconding, likelihood of reoffending, risk of witness influence, and the possibility of justice being thwarted.

The Court also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, discussing the misuse of POCSO proceedings against adolescent romantic relationships and the proposed “Romeo-Juliet” clause.

The Court applied that rationale at the bail stage to a relationship it considered consensual and between persons close in age, while expressly stating that this did not dilute statutory protection for children.

The Court considered the victim’s Section 183 BNSS statement that she went with the petitioner voluntarily and had physical relations without force, together with the medical report’s reference to consensual sexual contact with her boyfriend.

It treated the relationship as romantic and consensual for the limited purpose of deciding bail, noting that the petitioner was 22 and the victim 17 years and 6 months at the relevant time.

Applying the adolescent-relationship rationale in Anurudh, the Court concluded that the circumstances favoured release at this stage, without determining the merits of the charges.

It also took account of the petitioner’s seven months in custody, satisfactory jail conduct, lack of criminal antecedents, the distance between the parties’ residences, and the fact that the victim had not testified on the two previous trial dates.

The stated risk of witness influence was addressed through stringent bail conditions, including a prohibition on contacting the victim or her family and a 5-km residence restriction.

It directed his release on a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including attendance before the Trial Court, non-contact with the victim and her family, weekly reporting to the police station, disclosure and maintenance of contact and residence details, and not residing within 5 km of the victim’s residence.

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