Consent Of Minor Legally Irrelevant, But Romantic Involvement At 17 Years Of Age Tilts Balance For Bail: Delhi High Court

A case was registered under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

A Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan held, “Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident, therefore, her consent for sexual relations, if any, between them, will have no value in the eyes of law, but 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 consideration which tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail.”

Advocate Neeraj Kumar Jha appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Tarang Srivastava appeared for the Respondent.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that his daughter, aged about 14½ years, was taken away by the petitioner to Agra, where physical relations were established. The prosecutrix and the petitioner were traced to a hotel in Agra and were subsequently brought back to Delhi. The petitioner was arrested.

During investigation, the prosecutrix stated that she had gone with the petitioner to Agra, stayed there for 4–5 days and that the petitioner was her family friend. Her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her cross-examination indicated that she had liking for the petitioner and had gone with him of her own free will.

As no documentary proof of age was available, a bone ossification test was conducted, which assessed the prosecutrix to be more than 14 years but less than 17 years. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench in Court on its Own Motion v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court held that the upper age in the reference range would apply, and accordingly, the age of the prosecutrix was taken as 17 years.

The Court noted that while the prosecutrix was a minor and her consent would have no legal value, taking her age as 17 years, it prima facie appeared that she was of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity. The Court observed that the FIR itself mentioned that the prosecutrix and the petitioner were friends and that the material on record suggested a romantic relationship.

The Court further noted that the case did not involve violence or brutality, that the prosecutrix, her mother and other public witnesses had already been examined, and that the petitioner had been in custody since August 2023.

Accordingly, the petitioner was granted bail.

Cause Title: Varun Kumar Singh v. State, [2026:DHC:896]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Neeraj Kumar Jha and Rohit Kumar

Respondent: Advocates Tarang Srivastava, Vrinda Bhandari and Nitya Jain