New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has recently granted bail to a young man accused of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, emphasizing that the law should not be used to punish consensual romantic relationships between young individuals. The Court observed that while the legal consent of a minor is invalid, the "intellectual maturity" and the nature of the relationship are vital factors when considering bail.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, while presiding over the case, noted that the POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from exploitation and brutality, not to criminalize "young love" where the victim is close to attaining the age of majority.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Varun Kumar Singh v. State (SHO Rajinder Nagar), originated from an FIR registered in August 2023. The complainant (the girl’s father) alleged that his daughter, aged approximately 14 and a half years, had gone to buy tea behind a hospital in Delhi and was subsequently taken away by the petitioner, Varun Kumar Singh.
Following a police investigation, the duo was traced to a hotel in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, nearly a week later. During the initial inquiry, the prosecutrix (the girl) disclosed that she was a "family friend" of the petitioner and had accompanied him to Agra of her own free will to visit the city.
The petitioner was arrested on August 20, 2023, and charged under Sections 363 (Kidnapping), 366A (Procuration of minor girl), and 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
A significant portion of the legal battle centered on the girl’s age. Since she had never attended school, there were no official records to confirm her date of birth. Consequently, the police conducted a Bone Ossification Test (a medical procedure used to estimate age).
The medical report suggested that the girl was more than 14 years but less than 17 years old. However, Justice Mahajan applied a key legal principle established by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The principle states that when a "reference range" is given in an ossification test, the upper age limit should be considered in favor of the accused for bail purposes. Therefore, for the legal assessment of this bail application, the Court treated the girl as being 17 years old.
Arguments Presented in Court
For the Petitioner: Counsel for Varun Kumar Singh argued that the relationship was entirely consensual. They pointed towards the girl’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, where she explicitly stated that she loved the petitioner and that he loved her back. The defense highlighted that during her cross-examination, she admitted to going to Agra voluntarily and stated that "nothing wrong" had happened to her.
For the State and Prosecutrix: The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. They argued that in certain statements, the girl had alleged she was taken forcefully and that sexual relations had occurred. Counsel for the prosecutrix relied on several Supreme Court and High Court precedents to argue that the consent of a minor is immaterial under the POCSO Act and that the heinous nature of the crime warranted continued custody.
In a detailed 11-page judgment, Justice Mahajan balanced the strict requirements of the POCSO Act with the realities of modern social behavior.
The Court observed that the FIR itself mentioned the petitioner and the girl were friends. Upon reviewing the statements, the Court found that the girl had a "liking" for the petitioner.
"Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, therefore, her consent for sexual relations... will have no value in the eyes of law," Justice Mahajan noted. However, he added, "Taking her age as 17 years, it prima facie appears that prosecutrix was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity, and her romantic involvement with the petitioner is one of the considerations which tilts the balance in favor of the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail."
The High Court also referred to a previous ruling in Ajay Kumar v. State, which clarified that the POCSO Act was never intended to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between young adults. It noted that the law is often "misapplied" when parents object to a daughter’s choice of partner, leading to young men languishing in jail for years over what the Court described as "innocent, though unholy, physical alliances."
Factors for Granting Bail
The Court applied the "Golden Principle of Balancing Rights," assessing the case against several "real-life considerations" established in the Dharmender Singh v. State (2020) judgment:
- No Brutality: There was no evidence of violence, threat, or intimidation.
- Age Proximity: The girl was 17 (per the upper limit of the medical test), indicating she wasn't a young child incapable of understanding her actions.
- Period of Custody: The petitioner had already spent approximately 2 years and 5 months in jail.
- Evidence Preservation: All material witnesses, including the girl and her mother, had already testified in court. Therefore, there was no risk of the petitioner influencing them if released.
- Previous Record: The petitioner had no history of criminal involvement.
The Verdict
The Court concluded that the petitioner had made out a strong case for regular bail. It clarified that these observations are only for the purpose of the bail application and should not influence the final trial on merits.
Bail Conditions: Varun Kumar Singh was ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the same amount. The Court imposed strict conditions, including:
- The petitioner must not leave the Delhi/NCR region without informing the local Police Station.
- He must keep his mobile number active and share it with the Investigating Officer (IO).
- He must not contact the victim or her family.
This judgment reinforces a growing judicial trend in India where Courts are distinguishing between "predatory sexual exploitation" and "consensual adolescent romance." By acknowledging that a 17-year-old possesses a certain level of "intellectual capacity," the Delhi High Court has ensured that the rigors of the POCSO Act are applied with a sense of justice and ground reality, preventing the law from becoming an instrument of unnecessary hardship in cases of mutual affection.
- Case Title: Varun Kumar Singh v. State (SHO Rajinder Nagar)
- Case No: BAIL APPLN. 3015/2025
- Date of Order: February 03, 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan