Romantic Relationship Between Minors and Vague Medical Evidence Justify Grant of Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Abettor

The Petitioner, a woman, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 91/2026 registered at PS Dayalpur. The prosecution alleged that the prosecutrix (a minor nearing majority) visited the Petitioner's house to learn mehendi art, where a Child in Conflict with Law (‘M’) also visited.

It was alleged that on a specific day, the Petitioner called M to her home, sent him into a room with the prosecutrix, bolted the door from the outside to facilitate forcible sexual intercourse, and subsequently threatened the prosecutrix.

The defense contended that the relationship between M and the prosecutrix was romantic and consensual, evidenced by photographs, and that the Petitioner’s role was limited to providing them private space.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail considering the specific role attributed to her in the alleged commission of offences under the BNS and POCSO Act.

Section 64(1) (Punishment for rape), Section 351 (Criminal intimidation), and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The principle that while the consent of a minor is legally immaterial under POCSO, the specific intent and knowledge of an alleged abettor/accomplice must be prima facie evident to justify custodial interrogation.

The Court observed that while the prosecutrix was a minor, she was nearing the age of majority, necessitating a careful testing of her version against the evidence.

Upon reviewing photographs of M and the prosecutrix, the Court noted an undisputed romantic relationship between the two.

Regarding the Petitioner's specific role, the Court reasoned that bolting the door could be interpreted as providing "private space" rather than facilitating a forced assault.

The Court found no prima facie material to suggest the Petitioner had prior knowledge that M would engage in non-consensual intercourse.

Furthermore, the medical report was deemed "vague" as it stated sexual assault "cannot be ruled out" without providing supporting clinical parameters.

Given that the Petitioner is a woman and her role was distinct from the principal offender, the Court found no justification for her arrest.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to the condition that she joins the investigation as and when directed in writing by the Investigating Officer.