The POCSO Act was not meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between young adults, and various factors, including the age of the victim and accused, familial relationship, and social standing, should be considered in assessing the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No. 483/2021, under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of POSCO Act, registered at Police Station Naraina, New Delhi.

2. The FIR was registered at the instance of prosecutrix alleging that the petitioner was her neighbour who befriended the prosecutrix stating that he loves her. The petitioner would often call the prosecutrix on the terrace to meet her. In May 2021, when the parents of the prosecutrix were not at home, the petitioner telephoned her at around 12:00 at midnight and asked the prosecutrix to come on the terrace. When the prosecutrix went upstairs to the terrace, the petitioner took her to an empty room, where he established sexual relations with the prosecutrix on the pretext that he will marry her.

3. The prosecutrix did not tell about the aforesaid incident to anyone in her house out of fear. However, after many days when the prosecutrix started feeling pain in her stomach, she tested herself with a Home Kit and found that she was pregnant. Mustering the courage she told everything to her mother and thereafter she was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by her parents, where it was opined by the doctors that it was too late for an abortion.

4. On the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner, the FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(n) and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of consensual romantic relationship. To support his contention, he draws the attention of the Court to the MLC of the prosecutrix wherein the statement of the prosecturix as told by her to the examining doctor has been recorded.

6. It has clearly been stated by the prosecturix that she is 18 years of age and 7 months pregnant and that she was in a relationship with the boy. She has further stated that the doctors have advised her to get a case registered but she does not want to register a police case because all this happened according to her own will and without any pressure or coercion. Further, she has stated that it will be our own responsibility for all the risks; neither the hospital nor the doctors will be responsible.

7. The attention of the Court is also invited to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC, wherein again it is clearly stated by the prosecutrix that whatever has happened to her was as per her own will and that she wishes to marry the boy. She has also categorically stated that the present FIR which has been lodged at her instance has been registered under pressure and that she does not wish to pursue the case any further and wish to give quietus to the matter at this stage itself.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the age of the petitioner at the relevant time was a about 20 years whereas the prosecutrix was aged about 17.5 years. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2021 and has clean antecedents.

9. Per contra, Mr. Aashneet Singh, the learned APP for the State submits that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of incident, therefore, the consent of the prosecutrix has no relevance in law. However, he concedes that the age of the petitioner at the relevant time was 20 years and that of the prosecutrix was 17.5 years. It is also not in dispute that the antecedents of the petitioner are clean.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learned APP for the State and have perused the record.

11. This Court is cognizant of the fact that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident but at the same time it cannot be overlooked that the prosecturix was aged 17.5 years and was thus, of sufficient maturity and intellectual capacity. The petitioner at the relevant time was aged about 20 years.

12. From the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded in the MLC, as well as, under Section 164 CrPC, it prima faci