Delhi High Court granted bail to a young boy, observing that POCSO and rape charges cannot be used to punish a consensual romantic relationship with a girl near 18 years. The Court treated the girl’s age as 17, noted the relationship appeared voluntary, and considered over 2.5 years of custody before granting bail with conditions, without affecting the trial.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, while hearing the matter before Justice Vikas Mahajan, granted regular bail to a young man who was jailed in a serious POCSO and rape case for more than two and a half years. The Court observed that at the stage of bail, it must balance legal protection with real-life circumstances.
According to the prosecution, the girl was below 18 years of age and had gone missing in August 2023. A few days later, the girl and the accused were traced together in Agra, following which the police registered offences of kidnapping, rape, and provisions under the POCSO Act.
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the girl’s family, alleging that she was kidnapped and sexually assaulted.
During the investigation and later during trial, the girl gave several statements. In her statement to the police and during cross-examination before the court, she stated that she went with the accused on her own will and that both were in a relationship.
The Court also noted that even the FIR itself mentioned that the girl and the accused knew each other and were friends.
Since the girl had never attended school, there was no documentary proof of her age. A bone ossification test was conducted, which assessed her age as more than 14 years but less than 17 years. Relying on earlier Delhi High Court rulings, the Court considered the upper limit of the range and treated her age as 17 years.
The court indicated that cases involving teenage relationships require careful judicial understanding and cannot be viewed only through strict legal technicalities.
Justice Vikas Mahajan clarified that in law, consent of a minor has no value, but while deciding bail, the surrounding facts cannot be ignored. The Court observed:
“It appears to be a case of romantic relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.”
Justice Mahajan further noted that:
“Taking her age as 17 years, it prima facie appears that prosecutrix was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity.”
The Court also found that there were no allegations of violence, threat, or brutality in the case. Emphasising the limited scope of bail consideration, the judge referred to earlier precedents and observed:
“The intention of POCSO was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation and the Act was never meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between young adults.”
Another important factor was that all key witnesses, including the girl and her mother, had already been examined. The Court held that there was no real possibility of the accused influencing witnesses if released on bail.
It was also noted that the accused had no previous criminal record and had already spent a substantial period in custody.
The Court also acknowledged a concerning pattern seen in similar cases, where criminal law is invoked when families oppose a young couple’s relationship. Taking a balanced view, the Court held that continued incarceration was not justified at this stage of the trial.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused with strict conditions, including restrictions on travel and directions to remain available to the investigating agency.
The Court made it clear that these observations are only for the purpose of deciding bail and will not have any bearing on the final outcome of the case.
Explanatory Table Of Laws & Sections Involved
| Act & Section | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Indian Penal Code Section 363 | Punishes kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship | Police alleged the accused took the minor girl away from her family without permission |
| Indian Penal Code Section 366A | Punishes inducing a minor girl to move from one place for exploitation or illegal purpose | Prosecution claimed the girl was taken to Agra with wrongful intention |
| Indian Penal Code Section 376 | Provides punishment for rape | Sexual relations between accused and minor girl led to rape charges since minor consent is invalid in law |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section 4 | Punishes penetrative sexual assault on a child below 18 years | Charges were added because the girl was treated as minor under POCSO |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482 | Gives High Court power to grant relief such as bail and prevent misuse of legal process | Accused approached High Court under this provision seeking regular bail |
| Criminal Procedure Code Section 161 | Allows police to record witness and victim statements during investigation | Girl stated before police that she went voluntarily with the accused |
| Criminal Procedure Code Section 164 | Allows Magistrate to record statement of victim which has stronger legal value | Girl’s statement regarding relationship and travel with accused was recorded under this section |
| POCSO Act Section 29 | Creates legal presumption of guilt against accused in sexual offence cases involving minors | Court considered higher threshold while deciding bail but balanced it with facts like romantic relationship and lack of violence |
| Prohibition of Child Marriage Act Sections 9 & 10 | Punishes involvement of adult male in child marriage and related offences | Mentioned during arguments while discussing similar legal principles though not directly applied in deciding bail |
Case Details
- Case Title: Varun Kumar Singh vs State (SHO Rajinder Nagar)
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan
- Case Number: Bail Application No. 3015 of 2025
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved On: 24.12.2025
- Judgment Delivered On: 03.02.2026
- FIR Details: FIR No. 357/2023 dated 12.08.2023, Police Station: Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner (Accused): Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP, With SI Dharmendra, PS Rajinder Nagar
- For Prosecutrix: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate, Ms. Nitya Jain, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Many young men are getting trapped in serious criminal laws when teenage relationships turn into family disputes, showing urgent need for balanced and gender-neutral legal safeguards.
- Consent laws involving adolescents require clearer legal and social understanding so that genuine relationships are not automatically treated as criminal exploitation.
- Long jail custody before conviction is becoming a punishment in itself for men, highlighting serious concerns about misuse of stringent provisions.
- Criminal laws meant to protect must not be weaponised in emotional or family-driven conflicts, as false or exaggerated complaints can destroy a man’s life and reputation permanently.
- There is a strong need for legal reforms, faster trials, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that protection laws remain effective while preventing harassment of innocent men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.