Befriending A Boy Does Not Give Him Liberty To Indulge In Sexual Intercourse Without Consent: Delhi High Court Denies Bail In POCSO Case

The Delhi High Court, while denying bail to an accused in a POCSO case, has observed that befriending a boy doesn't give him the liberty to indulge in sexual intercourse without consent.

The Court was considering a Bail Application filed in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 354(D), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, "As regards the argument of it being a case of consensual relations, merely because a girl befriends a boy, the latter cannot be given liberty to indulge into sexual intercourse with her without her consent. Further, even the consent would not be lawful in the present case because the prosecutrix was minor in age. Rather, as specifically stated by the prosecutrix in the FIR as well as her testimony, the accused/applicant repeatedly indulged in sexual intercourse with her despite her objections. I am unable to find it a case of consensual relations merely because in the FIR the prosecutrix stated that the accused/applicant with his sweet talk befriended her."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Raj Kishore Choudhary, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahalawat.

Facts of the Case

The Case of the prosecution was that the Applicant was working as a construction labourer in NDMC Apartments, Vikaspuri allured the prosecutrix, minor in age, with his sweet talk and they became friends. But thereafter, one day the accused/applicant allured the prosecutrix to a deserted ground floor apartment which was under construction. Over there, the Applicant raped the prosecutrix and even threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. Even thereafter, till November 2023, the Applicant repeatedly raped the minor aged prosecutrix.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that at the time of the alleged incidents, the prosecutrix was major in age and cited her mother's testimony before the Trial Court in this regard. She had stated that she got married in the year 2000, and within two years, the prosecutrix was born. It was further argued that it is a clear case of consensual relations between the prosecutrix and the Applicant.

Reasoning By Court

So far as the argument about the prosecutrix having attained the age of majority was concerned, the Court ruled that a single handpicked line from the testimony of her mother cannot be read in isolation of the remaining material on record.

"The prosecution has filed along with the chargesheet, the educational record of the prosecutrix to establish her age and that record shall be proved by the Principal of the said educational institution, named in the list of witnesses attached with the chargesheet. It is trite that at the stage of considering a bail application, the Court cannot minutely examine the evidence. Admittedly, the prosecutrix in her testimony as PW-1 and her mother in her testimony as] PW-2 have supported the entire prosecution case pertaining to the alleged offence," the Court observed.

Regarding the relation being consensual, it was observed that befriending a boy doesn't give him the liberty to indulge in sexual intercourse without consent. The Court also stressed that the consent of a minor is not legally valid as well.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Mohammad Shahid vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025:DHC:5989)

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocate Raj Kishore Choudhary, Advocate Shalini Tripathi, Advocate Pratibha Singh

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahalawat,

Click here to read/ download Order