‘Must view young adults in consensual relations differently’: Delhi High Court grants teen anticipatory bail in POCSO case

Justice Prateek Jalan granted anticipatory bail to a young adult man in a POCSO-suicide case.

Relationship, obscene videos and suicide

• The FIR was registered on February 6, 2025, following the death by suicide of the complainant’s daughter, which took place on January 26, 2025.
• It was alleged that the applicant had sent objectionable photographs and videos to the girl on January 25, 2025, and that the two remained in telephonic contact on January 26, 2025, before the incident occurred. 
• A video was found in which the applicant was putting a mangalsutra on the girl, along with other objectionable photographs and videos, alleging that the applicant was harassing her.
• A status report was filed by the prosecution on August 22, 2025, alleging violations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). 
• The Delhi High Court, by order dated September 1, 2025, granted interim protection to the applicant against coercive steps, subject to his joining the application.
• On March 23, 2026, the prosecution filed an updated status report stating that the applicant and the girl were in a relationship and had visited a hotel where the videos were taken.
• It was also registered through the statement of the witnesses that they both were in a relationship and that the applicant had cheated on her by establishing a physical relationship with another girl.

‘Young adults in consensual relationships’

The Delhi High Court observed that the case concerned serious allegations of abetment of suicide and sexual offences of a minor; however, even in cases of alleged offences under the POCSO Act, the court exercises discretion to grant bail in appropriate cases. 

The court noted that although consent had no legal value in offences under the POCSO Act, cases involving young adults in a consensual physical relationship should be viewed differently, even if the decision was misguided. 

As far as the circulation of objectionable photographs and videos was concerned, the same were part of the conversation between the two individuals themselves, the Delhi High Court said.

Taking the applicant’s young age into consideration, the court opined that it did not consider this case to be a fit case to render a 19-year-old individual exposed to the risk of custody.

The Delhi High Court also denied the allegation against the young adult boy of non-cooperation on the ground that he had not handed over a different phone, which he had denied having used.

‘Video recorded by girl herself’

• Advocate Shweta S Kumar, for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was a 19-year-old student with clean antecedents, who lives with his family, and had been falsely implicated in the case.
• It was submitted that the applicant and the girl were of the same age and in a consensual relationship, and there was no material to establish that he had provoked her to die by suicide.
• The alleged videos were recorded by the girl herself, she being visible holding the camera, and there was no material to show any circulation thereof by the applicant, the counsel contended.
• The counsel submitted that the applicant had cooperated with the investigating agency, and yet his family had been subjected to undue harassment, affecting his and her younger sister’s studies.

‘Physical relationship between adult and minor’

• Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan for the state submitted that the material on record indicated that the applicant had recorded and transmitted obscene/intimate photographs and videos to the girl through WhatsApp.
• Chauhan acknowledged the fact that the video was not circulated to any third party by the applicant, but it could not be a determining factor to grant him anticipatory bail.
• It was argued that the applicant had established a physical relationship with the girl a day before she died by suicide, when he was an adult, while she was a minor, thereby attracting the POCSO Act.
• The counsel contended that the applicant did not cooperate with the investigation in a true sense and had produced a damaged phone instead of the one used for recording the videos.
• He was a resident of Nepal and could leave India, raising a reasonable risk, Chahaun added.

‘Humiliation and distress caused to girl’

Advocate Sandeep Kumar Singh submitted before the Delhi High Court that the applicant was simultaneously involved in relationships with other girls, which reflected his conduct bearing on the mental distress of the complainant’s daughter.

It was contended that the applicant had boasted about his relationship with the deceased before others and had shown such videos to his friends, thereby aggravating the humiliation and distress caused to the deceased. 

‘Where is the question of offence?’

The Supreme Court has recently raised doubts over whether a charge of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage could arise from a long-term live-in relationship where the couple cohabited for years and had a child.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a woman’s plea challenging a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had quashed her FIR under sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a false promise to marry), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt ) and 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.