[POCSO Case] Multiple Cases of Teenage Girls Eloping And Later Forced By Parents Change Statements': Delhi HC Grants Bail To Boy

The Delhi High Court, recently, granted bail to a boy who was arrested by the police for kidnapping a minor girl aged 17.5 years. “This Court is coming across a number of cases where girls who are more than about 17 years of age elope with boys of their choice and when they are caught, the parents of the victim force the victim to change the statement of the victim before the police”, the court, while granting bail, remarked.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the boy was about 20 years old when the complaint was filed. Considering that he has been in custody for 2 years, the court was inclined to grant him bail with security of Rs.25,000/.

The case was initiated after the father of the girl filed a missing person complaint, claiming that his daughter went to a friend’s house and never returned.

Advocate Kriti Ranjan, representing the boy, submitted that the case involved a romantic relationship between the couple, where both were in love. He stated that the girl voluntarily accompanied the boy to Madhya Pradesh, and they resided together there.

Additional Public Prosecutor Shoaib Haider, for the State, strongly opposed the bail application, asserting that the boy had committed a grave and heinous offence. APP Haider stated that, upon conviction, the boy could face a minimum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, and thus, the possibility of the boy absconding could not be dismissed.

The court noted that at the time of the incident, the girl was 17 years and 02 months which is about 10 months short of her attaining the age of majority. The court remarked that several cases were being filed where girls who are more than about 17 years of age elope with boys of their choice and when they are caught, the parents of the victim force the victim to change the statement of the victim before the police. The court also noted that the police records such statements at a later stage which is completely contrary to the earlier statements. There is a disparity between Section 161 CrPC statement and Section 164 CrPC Statement.

“The present case is a classic example where the victim in the first instance had come out with a story that she had gone to her friend’s house after informing her mother where she had called the Petitioner for meeting and, thereafter, they went to Madhya Pradesh with the Petitioner and after that Bihar and when they came to know that the father of the victim has filed a case, they came to Delhi”, the court added.

Without examining the liability of the boy under section 363 IPC (kidnapping), the court found sufficient evidence to grant him bail. The court, therefore, granted bail with the following directions:

“a) The Petitioner shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
b) The Petitioner shall not leave NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court. c) The Petitioner is directed to attend all the proceedings before the Trial Court. d) The Petitioner is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times.
e) The Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, contact the Prosecutrix or try to influence the witnesses in any manner.
f) The Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, with the Trial Court.
g) Violation of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of the bail given to the Petitioner”.

For Petitioner: Advocates Kriti Ranjan, Kumar Gaurav and Niharika Punn
For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Shoaib Haider
Case Title: Shubham v State Of Nct Of Delhi (2024:DHC:7446)