Introduction:

The present bail order was passed by the Delhi High Court in a case titled Varun Kumar Singh v. State (SHO Rajinder Nagar), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 143, wherein Justice Vikas Mahajan was called upon to decide a bail application filed by Varun Kumar Singh, an accused facing serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case raised a sensitive and legally complex issue at the intersection of child protection laws and consensual adolescent relationships, compelling the Court to balance the rigours of the POCSO Act with settled principles governing bail, prolonged incarceration, and factual circumstances indicating a romantic relationship rather than sexual exploitation.

Factual Background:

The prosecution case stemmed from an FIR registered in August 2023 under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 of the IPC along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the accused had taken the prosecutrix, stated to be around 14 years of age, to Agra and established physical relations with her. It was alleged that the accused had enticed or induced the minor away from lawful guardianship and subjected her to sexual intercourse. During investigation, however, the prosecutrix stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused and that they were in a friendly and romantic relationship. The case records revealed that there were no allegations of force, threat, violence, or coercion. As no school records or birth certificates were available to conclusively determine the age of the prosecutrix, the investigating agency conducted a bone ossification test, which assessed her age to be more than 14 years but less than 17 years. The accused remained in custody for over two years and five months, during which time the trial progressed substantially and all material witnesses, including the prosecutrix and her mother, were examined.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the prolonged incarceration of the accused, despite completion of examination of material witnesses, violated the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was contended that the case was not one of sexual assault involving brutality or abuse of power but arose from a romantic relationship between two young individuals. Emphasis was placed on the statement of the prosecutrix herself, who consistently stated that she had accompanied the accused of her own free will and that there was no force or intimidation. The petitioner relied on judicial precedents holding that while consent of a minor is legally irrelevant for determining guilt under POCSO, the factual matrix, including the age and maturity of the prosecutrix, the nature of the relationship, and the absence of violence, are relevant considerations at the stage of bail. It was further argued that as per settled law, when age determination is based on bone ossification tests, the upper age in the reference range must be taken, which in the present case would make the prosecutrix approximately 17 years old at the time of the incident.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and Prosecutrix:

Opposing the bail application, the State and counsel for the prosecutrix submitted that the offence alleged was grave and fell squarely within the stringent framework of the POCSO Act, which was enacted to protect children from sexual offences irrespective of apparent consent. It was argued that the prosecutrix was admittedly a minor, and therefore, any sexual relationship was per se illegal. The prosecution emphasized that the seriousness of the offence and the legislative intent behind POCSO required strict scrutiny before granting bail. It was contended that romantic involvement could not dilute the statutory protection afforded to minors and that granting bail could send an adverse message in cases involving child sexual offences.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Justice Vikas Mahajan carefully analysed the competing considerations and reiterated that while the consent of a minor has no legal value for determining culpability under POCSO, the Court cannot be oblivious to the factual context at the stage of bail. The Court relied upon a Division Bench judgment which held that when courts are required to determine the age of a victim on the basis of bone age ossification tests, the upper age mentioned in the reference range should be taken as the age of the victim. Applying this principle, the Court held that the prosecutrix’s age would have to be considered as 17 years. The Court underscored that taking the age as 17 years, it prima facie appeared that the prosecutrix possessed sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity, and that the relationship between the parties was romantic in nature. Justice Mahajan noted that the case did not involve allegations of violence, coercion, or exploitation, and that even the FIR described the accused and prosecutrix as friends. The Court further observed that all key witnesses had already been examined, thereby reducing the risk of witness tampering, and that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Emphasising that bail jurisprudence requires a humane and contextual approach, particularly where the trial is likely to take time, the Court held that the balance tilted in favour of granting bail.

Judgment:

Consequently, the Delhi High Court allowed the bail application, making it clear that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not influence the merits of the trial. The Court reaffirmed that while the POCSO Act must be strictly enforced to protect children, courts must also ensure that the liberty of an undertrial is not curtailed mechanically, especially in cases where the factual narrative suggests a consensual romantic relationship between adolescents close in age and maturity.