Consensual Love? Delhi HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case
Delhi High Court grants bail to a man in a POCSO case, citing a consensual adolescent relationship and the 'Romeo-Juliet' clause.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual and involved two adolescents.
The Legal Turning Point
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while presiding over the matter, noted that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no fruitful purpose. The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the victim's parents had eventually accepted the relationship and that the accused had maintained satisfactory behavior during his four months in judicial custody.
The court ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to a personal bond of Rs 20,000 and one surety of the same amount.
The 'Romeo-Juliet' Clause
A pivotal part of the judgment was the court's reliance on a Supreme Court precedent: State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Anurudh and Another. In that case, the apex court highlighted a troubling trend where the POCSO Act is frequently misused by families to suppress romantic relationships between adolescents.
The Supreme Court had previously emphasized the need for a ‘Romeo-Juliet’ clause, which would exempt adolescent romantic relationships from the stringent and rigid application of the POCSO Act, recognizing the difference between predatory abuse and teenage romance.
Case Background: From Missing Person to Arrest
The legal battle began with an FIR lodged at the Sarita Vihar Police Station in January 2026. The complaint was filed by the father of the victim, who reported that his 16-year-old daughter had been missing since January 5.
The police eventually traced the girl on May 13, finding her living with the petitioner in a rented accommodation on the outskirts of Delhi. The petitioner was arrested immediately and remanded to judicial custody.
Marriage Claims and Medical Findings
During the police investigation, the petitioner claimed that he and the victim had married and were living together as husband and wife. However, neither the accused nor the victim provided any documentary proof to substantiate the marriage.
Further complicating the case, a medical examination revealed that the victim was pregnant, confirming that sexual intercourse had taken place while she was still a minor.
Arguments in Court
Advocates Anis Mohammed, Praveen Tokas, and Mohd Irfan, representing the petitioner, argued that since both parties were adolescents in a consensual relationship, the 'Romeo-Juliet' clause should apply to their situation.
Conversely, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sunil Kumar Gautam opposed the bail. He argued that the offenses under the POCSO Act are grave, especially involving a 16-year-old. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released, the petitioner might intimidate the victim, her family, or other witnesses, potentially compromising the fairness of the trial.
Despite these objections, the High Court found the circumstances of the consensual adolescent relationship sufficient to grant bail.