Delhi High Court grants bail in POCSO case, says consensual relationship is relevant to bail consideration

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in FIR No. 149/2026, registered under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant’s approximately 17-year-old daughter had gone missing and was later found at the applicant’s native place; a chargesheet was filed under Sections 64(1) and 137(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The applicant had been in custody since 23 April 2026 and had undergone approximately four months’ custody as of 27 August 2026; the case was at the prosecution-evidence stage.

The victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS described a consensual relationship, stated that she had accompanied the applicant willingly, and expressed her wish to live with him.

The State had no serious objection to bail, and the complainant did not oppose it.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in the circumstances of the case, including the victim’s statements, the period of custody, and the stage of trial.

2. Whether the victim’s account of a voluntary romantic relationship could be considered in deciding bail, notwithstanding that she was a minor and her consent had no legal bearing.

The application was considered under Section 483, read with Section 528, of the BNSS.

The prosecution’s charges included Section 137(2) of the BNS and, in the chargesheet, Sections 64(1) and 137(2) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court acknowledged that, because the victim was a minor, her consent had no legal bearing; however, it held that the circumstances of a relationship described as consensual could be considered in determining bail.

It also referred to Ajay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3705, for the proposition that the POCSO Act is intended to protect children from sexual exploitation and was not meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young adults.

The Court considered the victim’s statements that she had accompanied the applicant willingly, that the relationship was voluntary, and that she wished to live with him.

It expressly noted that her minority meant her consent had no legal effect, but treated the circumstances of the relationship as relevant to the bail determination.

Taking those circumstances together with the State’s lack of serious objection, the complainant’s non-opposition, and the custody and trial-stage information on record, the Court concluded that continued custody was not warranted.

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