Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High has observed that a person who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person is not required to judicially investigate the other's date of birth.

The court was hearing a bail application filed by one Hanzla Iqbal booked for offences under Section 376/34 of IPC read with Section 6 of Prevention of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

While granting bail to Hanzla Iqbal, Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that before entering into a physical relationship a person is not required to see the Aadhar card or PAN card, or verify her date of birth from her school record.

Regarding the present case, Court noted that the mere presence of an Aadhar Card, with a date of birth of January 1, 1998, was sufficient for the applicant to conclude that he was not involved in a physical relationship with a minor.

The complainant had alleged that in September 2019, Iqbal called her to a Hotel in Paharganj, Delhi and established a physical relationship with her and made a video of her, and later blackmailed her.

It was also alleged that Iqbal forced her to have physical relationships with different people under the threat of releasing the video.

The complainant had further alleged that in August 2021, she managed to escape Iqbal’s house where she was held captive, and met a lady Savita who is an advocate who helped her in filing the FIR.

On the contrary, the counsel for Iqbal submitted that the incident took place in September 2019 and the complainant had 4 different dates of birth, and as per her Aadhar Card, it was January 1, 1998, whereas on her PAN card it was February 25, 2004.

The counsel for Iqbal further submitted that as per the verification done by the State, the date of birth of the complainant was June 1, 2015, and argued that she had given the date of birth as per her convenience, only to invoke the provisions of POCSO Act.

He further alleged that the complainant was extorting money from Iqbal and when he refused to comply with her demands on April 30, 2022, she registered an FIR against him the same day after 3 years of the incident.

Furthermore, it was claimed that the investigation by the police was shoddy, and there were financial transactions indicating a sum of Rs.4,50,000 from Iqbal’s account which had not been investigated by the police.

He stated that the Aadhar card had not been verified, no investigation had been made into the complainant’s multiple Instagram accounts and there also had been no investigation into the neighbors of the houses where the complainant had alleged she was confined.

Noting that “there was much more to this case than what met the eye”, the Court observed that it was complainant's testimony that she had been in a relationship with Iqbal since 2019, and if he blackmailed her, she could have approached the police at an earlier stage.

Court added, “The allegation of blackmailing on the pretext of a video does not inspire confidence in me, as the complainant has not stated in the FIR that Iqbal had ‘forced’ physical relationship with her.”

Court held that a person who is in a consensual physical relationship with another person is not required to judicially investigate the other person's date of birth. Before entering into a physical relationship, he is not required to see her Aadhar card, PAN card, or verify her date of birth from her school record and the mere presence of an Aadhar Card, with a date of birth of January 1, 1998, is sufficient for the applicant to conclude that he was not involved in a physical relationship with a minor.

Court also noted that there are transfers of huge amounts of money in favor of the complainant, and opined that the status report had not investigated this aspect.

The court referred to a case titled Kapil Gupta v. State wherein the high court bench observed that there are cases where innocent people are honey trapped and large sums of money are extracted from them. Thus, Court directed the Commissioner of Police to personally investigate such cases of honey trapping and granted bail to the accused in the present case. 

Case Title: Hanzla Iqbal v. The State & Anr.