Delhi HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail to Accused in POCSO Case Despite Claims of Consent

In a significant order highlighting the judicial stance on crimes against minors, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by one Sumit Singh. The accused, facing serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sought relief from arrest, but Justice Swara Kanta Sharma refused the plea, citing the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's failure to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

The Background of the Incident

The case stems from an FIR registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi, following allegations by a 17-year-old victim. The complainant alleged that she had known the accused from her neighborhood. According to the FIR, on June 26, 2025, the accused called her to meet him near Hamdard, subsequently taking her to a friend's flat in Govindpuri. The victim alleged that she was confined, beaten, and repeatedly sexually assaulted within the premises.

The victim initially withheld information due to fear and trauma, only disclosing the ordeal to her mother on July 5, 2025, following an altercation between the two families. The medical examination conducted at AIIMS corroborated the claims, noting physical injuries and trauma.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The defense counsel argued that the FIR was a retaliatory measure born out of a dispute between the two families. Further emphasizing the delay of 11 days in filing the complaint and highlighting the accused’s clean criminal record, the defense contended that the relationship was consensual.

Conversely, the State, represented by learned APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, maintained that the investigation was still at a sensitive stage. The State argued that the accused could pose a significant threat to the victim and that his custodial interrogation was essential to determine the location of the incident and other material facts.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Swara Kanta Sharma addressed and dismissed the arguments regarding the delay in filing the FIR, noting that the victim's silence was a natural response to the extreme trauma and shame experienced.

In a powerful observation regarding the plea of consent, the court held: > "This Court finds that the contention on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and the complainant were friends and therefore, it could be a case of consensual relationship, cannot be accepted by this Court, since even if the parties concerned were friends, friendship does not give any license to the applicant to rape the victim repeatedly, confine her in his friend’s house and beat her mercilessly."

The court further emphasized that the applicant had previously failed to join the investigation, despite having other bail applications rejected or withdrawn on four separate occasions.

A Firm Stance on Judicial Discretion

The High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary's strict approach toward cases involving minors and serious sexual violence. By rejecting the anticipatory bail, the Court has reinforced that claims of consensual friendship cannot shield an accused from the consequences of prima facie evidence of non-consensual sexual activity and physical assault.

The order acts as a reminder of the court's priority to protect vulnerable victims and ensure the continuity of investigations without interference. As the matter proceeds to trial, the court clarified that these observations are preliminary and intended solely for the adjudication of the bail application.