Recently, the Delhi High Court allowed a regular bail application in a case involving allegations under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, holding that continued incarceration of the accused was not justified at an advanced stage of trial. While acknowledging the statutory rigour attached to offences involving minors, the Court underscored that bail jurisprudence must still engage with factual realities, noting that the FIR itself reflected a consensual relationship, though legally invalid due to age.
Brief Fact:
The case arose from FIR registered at Pul Prahlad Pur Police Station, Delhi, based on a complaint by a prosecutrix aged around 17 years. According to the FIR, the prosecutrix and the accused, who were neighbours, developed a close relationship that gradually led to frequent meetings and physical intimacy at their respective homes.
The prosecutrix allegedly became pregnant during this period, a fact that came to light only in November 2023, when she was taken to hospital due to stomach pain and subsequently delivered a child. It was alleged that the physical relationship was induced by a false promise of marriage. The accused was arrested on 07 November 2023, and during the pendency of trial, all public witnesses were examined, bringing the proceedings to a critical stage.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the accused contended that the prosecutrix was over 17 years of age, mentally mature, and a consenting participant in the relationship. It was argued that the FIR itself acknowledged voluntary intimacy and that the alleged promise of marriage did not precede the relationship. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the accused had remained in custody for a substantial period and that all public witnesses had already been examined, eliminating any apprehension of tampering with evidence. The accused also expressed readiness to marry the prosecutrix, indicating absence of mens rea to deceive.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, along with counsel representing the prosecutrix, opposed the grant of bail, asserting that consent of a minor is immaterial in law under the POCSO Act. It was submitted that the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the statutory mandate of POCSO, disentitled the accused from the discretionary relief of bail. The prosecution stressed that the offence involved sexual exploitation of a minor, warranting a strict approach.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a careful balancing exercise between the protective object of the POCSO Act and the constitutional right to personal liberty. Interacting personally with the prosecutrix, the Court noted that she appeared “knowledgeable and mentally mature” and had stated that she no longer wished to marry the accused and had entrusted the child to her paternal aunt. Significantly, the Court observed that the FIR itself disclosed a consensual relationship, albeit one rendered legally void due to the prosecutrix being under 18 years of age.
The Court further found substance in the argument that the alleged promise of marriage surfaced only after the prosecutrix informed the accused of her pregnancy, thereby weakening the allegation that consent was vitiated from the outset. Stressing procedural safeguards, the Court noted that “all public witnesses have already been examined, and there is no likelihood of the accused influencing the trial or tampering with evidence”. These factors, taken cumulatively, persuaded the Court that continued custody would serve no meaningful purpose.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including restriction on leaving the Delhi-NCRwithout prior permission of the Trial Court. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.
Case Title: Ankit Lakra and Anr. vs. State Nct of Delhi
Case No.: Bail Appln. 4565/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sachin Pahwa, Adv. Param Kaur Pahwa
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. Archit Upadhayay
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
