"Court Not Dealing With Criminals But Two Teenagers In Love": Delhi HC Allows Bail Application Of Accused Charged Under POCSO Act

The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated May 8, 2023 held that the accused in the case at hand, charged with offence under POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 363/376 Penal Code, 1860, could not be equated with an accused under criminal jurisprudence as the entire case seemed to be of teenage love where the parties, unaware of the consequences, decided to elope and settle far away from their homes.

It was however cautioned that facts of every such case of elopement may not fall into this category and would have to be adjudged taking into account the evidence of inducement by the accused and statement by the prosecutrix.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while allowing the bail application, observed,

“The prosecutrix has been consistent in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as before the Court and supports the man she loves, blissfully unaware that the law in this country does not support such love stories. The main character i.e. the present accused is not a criminal, but was merely in love and at the instance of her lady love, being unaware of the nitty-gritties of law, had taken her to a place which was 2200 kms away from Delhi to lead a peaceful life. The criminal intent of any kind from the record is completely missing as neither of the characters of the story i.e. prosecutrix and accused had switched off their mobile phones so that their location may not be available to the police or to their family.”

Court added that though consent of a minor does not hold any value in the eyes of law, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it was not appropriate for a court to label the applicant as an accused, especially when there was no incriminating evidence against him.

"The attitude towards early relationships, especially adolescent love, has to be looked into in the backdrop of real life situations", the court said while adding, "The teenagers who try to imitate films and novels, remain unaware about laws and age of consent".  Reliance was placed on the observation in Rajeev Kumar v. State, Bail Appln. 1379/2022 in this regard.

Cognizance was also taken over the fact that all that the parties wanted was validation of their relationship and the only idea that came to the mind of the prosecutrix for that, was giving birth to a child from their union.

Brief Background:

The present application was moved seeking regular bail against offences punishable under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in a relationship with each other and it was at the behest of the prosecutrix that they had run away from their home.

In the statement under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, 1973, the prosecutrix submitted that she had gone with the accused out of her own free will as she had developed a liking for him. She also stated that it was only at her insistence that the accused had taken her to Chennai as she did not want to live with her parents.

With respect to the age of prosecutrix, the statement under Section 164 CrPC mentioned that her real age was 18 and not 16 years, though her school records proved otherwise.

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar v. NCT of Delhi