The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to scrutinize early love relationships and the age of consent in cases involving teenage individuals. The court emphasized the innocence of the accused and the prosecutrix, their intention to marry, and the lack of criminal intent.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)--The instant application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of accused/applicant seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR bearing no. 181/2021, registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 363/376 IPC (`IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.04.2021, a complaint was received by the police lodged by sister of the prosecutrix `X' that she was missing from home. Investigation in this case was conducted and during investigation, it transpired that she used to speak to the present accused/applicant whose mobile phone number was provided to the police. The Call Detail Record (CDR) of the said mobile phone number was obtained and analysis of the same revealed that the location of the mobile phone was at Delhi on 23.04.2021 and in Chennai, Tamil Nadu on 25.04.2021. On the basis of CDR location analysis, the prosecutrix was recovered from Chennai who informed the police that she had come with the accused out of her own free will. The present FIR was thereafter registered under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. After investigation, the accused was arrested and chargesheet was filed. During investigation, the prosecutrix was found seven weeks pregnant. The medical termination of pregnancy was conducted as per law and the DNA report confirmed that the present accused/applicant was the biological father of the child. Chargesheet was filed and the applicant is in judicial custody since 07.06.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the present accused/applicant states that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship with each other and it was at the behest of the prosecutrix that they had run away from their home. It is stated that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the Court where she was examined as PW-1 and she did not support the case of the prosecution. It is also stated that the prosecutrix stands examined by the learned Trial Court. It is further stated that the prosecutrix who is present in the Court also does not support the case of prosecution and states that she was 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident.

4. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the prosecutrix was only 16 years of age at the time of incident and her consent is of no consequence and, therefore, bail be rejected.

5. I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the material on record.

6. In the present case, notice was issued to the prosecutrix since the bail application of accused was being heard. The prosecutrix appeared before this Court and stated that she was 18 years of age at the time of incident, although the record i.e. her school record does not support the said claim. Ossification test in this case was not conducted. Perusal of the statements of the prosecutrix reveal that in her statement under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her testimony recorded in the Court, she has consistently stated that she had gone with the accused out of her own free will as she had developed a liking for him. She has also consistently 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. She also states that she had, at the time of accompanying the accused to Chennai, told him that she was 18 years of age. The statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. also points out the same. Perusal of record further reveals that she had stated that in Chennai, when the accused had come to know that she was less than 18 years of age, he himself had told her that he would get married to her once she will turn 18 years of age. It is also the case of the prosecutrix herself that she had given the idea of getting pr