Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in Mohd. Rafayat Ali v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr. Reaffirmed the principle that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the victim’s age is the determining factor, rendering any claim of a consensual relationship legally immaterial. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing the bail plea of Mohd. Rafayat Ali noted that if the prosecutrix is below 18 years, the law presumes she is incapable of giving valid consent, making the alleged consensual nature of the relationship irrelevant. Ali, who was already married with children, had been accused of engaging in a physical relationship with a 16-year-old girl under the pretext of marriage, leading to her pregnancy. The prosecutrix initially maintained that the relationship was consensual, but the case was registered based on a complaint by her mother. The Court, considering the school records which confirmed the prosecutrix’s age as below 18 at the time of the alleged incident, rejected Ali’s contention that she was a major. The Court denied bail, citing the gravity of the offence, the age disparity, the potential for influencing witnesses, and the ongoing trial.

Arguments:

Ali, the petitioner, sought bail because the prosecutrix had voluntarily entered into a relationship with him and her statements confirmed its consensual nature. He also argued that there was a discrepancy in her age and that she was 18 at the time of the alleged incidents. He contended that her school records should not be taken as conclusive proof of her age, and further argued that his continued incarceration was unnecessary given the consensual nature of their relationship. His counsel pointed out that the prosecutrix had stated before the Child Welfare Committee that she had willingly engaged in the relationship, and her pregnancy was not a result of coercion. He also contended that there was no evidence to show that Ali had forced the prosecutrix to terminate the pregnancy or that he had malicious intent. The defence maintained that Ali had been falsely implicated due to pressure from the prosecutrix’s parents, who disapproved of their relationship.

The prosecution, opposing the bail plea, asserted that the school records were the primary and legally accepted proof of age in cases under the POCSO Act, and these records confirmed that the prosecutrix was 16 years old at the time of the incident. The prosecution emphasized that any assertion of a consensual relationship was legally untenable, as the Act strictly prohibits sexual relations with a minor, regardless of mutual consent. It was also argued that Ali’s conduct—engaging in a relationship with a minor while being married and later providing medication to terminate her pregnancy—demonstrated a clear case of exploitation. The prosecution further highlighted that the trial was ongoing, and releasing Ali on bail at this stage could lead to potential witness tampering, particularly given his prior relationship with the prosecutrix and the significant power dynamics involved.

Judgement:

The Delhi High Court, after analyzing the arguments, upheld the fundamental principle of the POCSO Act, reiterating that consent is legally irrelevant when the victim is below 18 years of age. The Court observed that the prosecutrix’s school records categorically established her date of birth as August 3, 2008, making her 16 at the time of the alleged incidents. It rejected the accused’s plea to disregard these records in favour of the prosecutrix’s statements, stating that at the stage of bail, oral assertions cannot override documentary evidence. The Court also noted that the nature of the allegations, the significant age disparity between the accused and the prosecutrix, and the ongoing trial were factors that weighed against granting bail. The judgment emphasized that the law is structured to protect minors from exploitation and that courts must strictly enforce these provisions without being influenced by claims of mutual consent. The Court further pointed out that no material had emerged during cross-examination to contradict the school records. Given the seriousness of the offence, the possibility of witness tampering, and the fact that key prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, the Court concluded that Ali’s continued detention was necessary to ensure a fair trial. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.