Mere plea of consensual relationship is immaterial in cases involving repeated sexual exploitation of a minor.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the claims of a consensual relationship despite the prosecutrix being a minor at the time of the alleged offences.

The court held

The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the nature of the allegations and the evidence of forged identities and intimidation outweigh the applicant's plea for bail

It also directed

The court dismissed the bail application (BAIL APPLN. 615/2026) while clarifying that this order does not constitute an opinion on the final merits of the case

01Facts

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 02/2026 involving charges of sexual assault and criminal intimidation.

The prosecutrix alleged that while she was a minor (approx. 14 years old) in 2022, the applicant established physical relations with her and continued to do so until July 2025

p. 2, 5

She further alleged that the applicant recorded private photographs and videos to blackmail her

p. 2

Investigation revealed the applicant used a fake Aadhaar card belonging to a woman named 'S' to book hotel rooms, forcing the prosecutrix to impersonate 'S'

pp. 4-5

On 07.01.2026, an altercation occurred when the applicant allegedly refused to delete the media, threatened the prosecutrix with a knife, and slapped her

p. 2

The applicant was arrested on 08.01.2026

p. 3

The applicant argued the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was a result of a financial dispute

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the claims of a consensual relationship despite the prosecutrix being a minor at the time of the alleged offences.

p. 3, 5

ii.2. Whether the gravity of the allegations, including the use of forged documents and criminal intimidation, warrants the continued judicial custody of the applicant pending trial.

pp. 5-7

03Law Applied

Sections 137(2), 64(2), 65, 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

p. 1

Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act

p. 1

in cases involving minors, the plea of "consent" is legally immaterial and does not absolve the accused of criminal liability for sexual offences

p. 4, 5

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137 Section 64 Section 65 Section 115 Section 351

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that since the prosecutrix was between 14 and 17 years of age during the incidents, her consent is irrelevant under the eyes of the law

p. 5

The court noted significant incriminating evidence, including the recovery of hotel records where the applicant allegedly used a fake Aadhaar card and forced the minor to forge signatures to bypass age restrictions

pp. 5-6

The court highlighted that independent witnesses and statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS corroborated the incident of criminal intimidation involving a knife on 07.01.2026

p. 7

the court observed that the FSL report regarding the objectionable media on the applicant's phone is still awaited and the prosecutrix is yet to be examined by the Trial Court

p. 6, 7

Given the seriousness of the allegations of blackmailing and the systematic exploitation of a minor, the court found no grounds for bail

p. 7

05Holding

The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the nature of the allegations and the evidence of forged identities and intimidation outweigh the applicant's plea for bail

pp. 7-8

The court dismissed the bail application (BAIL APPLN. 615/2026) while clarifying that this order does not constitute an opinion on the final merits of the case

p. 8

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF