Marrying Victim After She Attained Majority Doesn’t Absolve Accused Of Rape When She Was Minor: Delhi High Court Denies Bail
The Delhi High Court was considering a bail application of a POCSO Act case accused.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
While denying bail to a person accused of an offence under the POCSO Act, the Delhi High Court has held that just because the accused/applicant got married to the prosecutrix after she attained majority through Nikahnama will not absolve the accused of his repeated acts of rape when the prosecutrix was a minor in age.
The High Court was considering a bail application of an accused/applicant booked in a case registered under Sections 69,123,89,79,351,115(2) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia stated, “Of course, as per documents on record, on 12.02.2026, the accused/applicant got married with the prosecutrix through Nikahnama. But that does not absolve the accused/applicant of his repeated acts of rape when the prosecutrix was minor in age. As mentioned above, at the time of commencement of sexual relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix, the latter was aged only 16 years and when she attained the age of majority in the year 2024, the accused/applicant refused to get married with her, which led to the present FIR.”
Advocate Hemraj Murmu represented the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case stems from an FIR registered on the statement of the prosecutrix, alleging that when she was a 16-year-old minor, she developed a friendship with the accused/applicant over Facebook. The prosecutrix alleged that they indulged in sexual relations on the accused’s false assurances that he would marry her. During the said period, she got pregnant twice, and the accused made her terminate the pregnancy. However, after she attained the age of 18 years, the accused/applicant refused to get married to her and even started beating her up. It was in such circumstances that the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, took note of the fact that the prosecutrix and her counsel supported the accused/applicant. The prosecutrix submitted that the contents of the FIR were false and she was not aware of the same. The Bench found it surprising that the prosecutrix, being a law student, was so gullible that she would simply sign a serious complaint and give it to the local police, that too after getting the same translated from English to Hindi without reading its content.
The Bench stated, “From testimony of prosecutrix, I find credence in the argument of the prosecution that prima facie, her testimony appears to be false, though on this aspect, the trial court shall take an independent view and this observation is being made only to deal with the argument advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix.”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that it was only after the accused/applicant was arrested and was in jail that he agreed to get married to the prosecutrix and that too by way of an order of the Court. His interim bail application was disposed of, directing that he be taken in custody before the Qazi, who performed the marriage ceremony.
“Clearly, the marriage was performed by the accused/applicant simply as a ploy to get himself bailed out, having committed repeated rapes of a minor girl, as alleged by her in the FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC”, the Bench stated.
“Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail”, the Bench held while dismissing the application.
Cause Title: Gayassudin v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2960)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Hemraj Murmu, Arun Kumar Bharti, Tanay Jareda
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal, IO/SI Shakuntala, PS Jamia Nagar