Merely being friendly on Valentines Day gives Licence to Force Sexual Relations? HC concludes Bail Plea in POCSO case

On Friday, in a sharp reminder about the boundaries of consent in today’s fast-moving social world, the Delhi High Court examined a regular bail plea by an accused booked under the POCSO Act for allegedly luring a 17-year-old girl to a house on Valentine’s Day 2025, applying vermilion in her hair parting, and forcing sexual relations despite her protests, as the prosecution presented school records proving her minor status, DNA evidence, and the victim’s own courtroom appearance opposing release.

The case arose when the 17-year-old prosecutrix, living with her mother and brothers after her father’s death, told police she had known the accused for a year through phone calls, on 14 February 2025 he called her to a lady’s house under a pretext, filled her hair parting with vermilion, kissed her, and proceeded despite her resistance, prompting her brother to dial 100 and her medical examination.

The accused’s counsel argued she was above 18 and the encounter was consensual on a “special” romantic day, but the state, assisted by IO SI Neha, hit back hard, producing the MCD school certificate showing her date of birth as 14 January 2008, DNA confirmation from her vaginal swab, and testimonies from both the girl and her brother fully backing the prosecution, with the now-married prosecutrix personally appearing in court to oppose bail.

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “Merely because, a girl is friendly with a boy and the day is Valentine Day, it does not give licence to the boy to forcibly establish sexual relations with her. Even filling the hair parting of the girl with vermilion without her consent cannot be justified, though it is not a prescribed offence.” Noting that the prosecutrix’s consistent stand, from FIR through trial testimony and her presence in court, proved the act was against her will, the judge concluded the bail application and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Application are dismissed.

Case Title: Wasim Akhtar vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI )

Case No.: Bail Appln. 815/2026 & Crl.M.A. 6238/2026

Coram:  Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Vijayant Sharma Adv. Nishant Kumar Saxena,

Advocate for the Respondent: APP Sanjeev Sabharwal, SI. Neha

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com