Friendship No License for Non-Consensual Sex: Delhi HC
"I am unable to find it a case of consensual relations merely because in the FIR the prosecutrix stated that the accused/applicant with his sweet talk befriended her," the Court said;
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a girl befriends a boy, it does not give him the liberty to have sexual intercourse with her without her consent.
In doing so, a bench led by Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the bail plea of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, facing charges under Sections 376, 342, 354(D), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
“As regards the argument of it being a case of consensual relations, merely because a girl befriends a boy, the latter cannot be given liberty to indulge into sexual intercourse with her without her consent,” the Court said.
According to the prosecution’s case, the accused was working as a construction labourer in NDMC Apartments. During that time, he allured the prosecutrix, who was a minor in age, with his sweet talk, and they became friends.
But thereafter, one day, the accused allured the prosecutrix to a deserted ground-floor apartment which was under construction. Over there, the accused allegedly raped her and even threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. Even thereafter, till November 2023, the accused repeatedly raped the minor-aged prosecutrix.
However, the counsel for the accused had argued that the prosecutrix was a major in age. It was further argued that it is a clear case of consensual relations between the prosecutrix and the accused.
To support the claim, the counsel referred to the FIR, which mentions that the prosecutrix became friends with the accused.
Rejecting the plea, the Court said, “So far as the argument about the prosecutrix having attained the age of majority is concerned, a single handpicked line from the testimony of her mother cannot be read in isolation of the remaining material on record."
It added, "Further, even the consent would not be lawful in the present case because the prosecutrix was a minor in age. Rather, as specifically stated by the prosecutrix in the FIR as well as her testimony, the accused/applicant repeatedly indulged in sexual intercourse with her despite her objections."
Dismissing the plea, the Court conclusively said, “In view of gravity of the alleged offence, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused/applicant. The bail application is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.”
Case Title: Mohammad Shahid @ Sahid vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Order Date: 24 July 2025
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia