POCSO Act Not Intended To Criminalise Consensual Romantic Relationships Between Young Individuals: Delhi High Court Grants Bail
The High Court held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was enacted to safeguard children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young individuals.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, while granting bail to a 19-year-old accused, held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was never intended to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young individuals, particularly where the factual circumstances indicate voluntary companionship and absence of coercion.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking regular bail in connection with an FIR registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, while granting bail, observed: “the intention of the POCSO Act was to protect the children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. It was never meant to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young individuals.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Madhav Suri and Akanksha Singh, while the respondents were represented by Ajay Vikram Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Background
The case arose from an FIR lodged at the instance of the victim’s mother, alleging that her daughter had been taken away from her lawful guardianship. After the victim was traced and medically examined, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pursuant to which further penal provisions were invoked.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had engaged in a sexual relationship with the victim and that the relationship resulted in pregnancy. The petitioner was arrested and remained in judicial custody for a considerable period.
The petitioner contended that he and the victim had known each other for several years and were involved in a consensual relationship. It was submitted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied him on more than one occasion and that there was no element of force, threat, or coercion.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the statements recorded during the investigation indicated that the victim had voluntarily left her home and stayed with the petitioner for an extended period. It was observed that there was no material to suggest that the victim was confined, restrained, or prevented from returning home.
While recognising that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant under the statute, the Court held that the surrounding circumstances, including the proximity of age between the parties and the nature of the relationship, were relevant considerations at the stage of bail.
“The consent of the victim for the physical relationship though cannot be construed as consent in law, but the same has to be seen in the light of the fact that it prima facie seems to be the case of romantic relationship given the age of the petitioner and victim, as well as, the circumstances of the present case as noted above”, the Bench further remarked.
The Court further took note of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and observed that the trial had progressed slowly, with the victim’s examination remaining incomplete for a substantial period, for reasons not attributable to the petitioner.
The Court reiterated that pre-trial detention cannot be punitive in nature and that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be balanced against the statutory objectives of the POCSO Act.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the continued incarceration of the petitioner was not warranted in the facts of the case. It reiterated that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was enacted to protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, and not to criminalise consensual romantic relationships between young individuals.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail subject to conditions, including non-interference with the prosecution witnesses and appearance before the trial court as required. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial.
Cause Title: Sonu Halder v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:236)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Madhav Suri, Akanksha Singh
Respondents: Advocate Ajay Vikram Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, Advocate Abhishek Shrivastava