The court established that a romantic relationship's dynamics and the victim's age, when determined through ossification tests, might mitigate the gravity of charges under the POCSO Act, affecting bail considerations.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 357/2023 dated 12.08.2023 registered under Sections 363 /366A/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the chargesheet dated 10.10.2023 and the status report dated 22.08.2025, is that on 12.08.2023, a PCR call vide DD No. 38 was received from the complainant. Thereafter, a case was registered upon the statement of the complainant, who alleged that his daughter (hereinafter, ‘the prosecutrix’), aged about 14¹/ years, at

2 around 11:00 AM went behind the Ganga Ram City Hospital to get tea, from where she was taken away by the petitioner, who also happens to be a friend of the prosecutrix.

3. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix and the petitioner were traced to Hotel Taj King Residency, Agra, Uttar Pradesh on 18.08.2023. Subsequently, both the prosecutrix as well as the petitioner were brought back from Agra to PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.

4. During interrogation, the prosecutrix disclosed that she had gone with the petitioner to visit Agra, stayed there for 4-5 days and that the petitioner is her family friend. Afterwards, the prosecutrix along with her mother was taken to RML Hospital for medical examination. Further, counselling of the victim was also conducted through the counsellor of the DCW. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on

19.08.2023.

5. During further investigation on 20.08.2023, the petitioner was arrested from his residence and a potency test was conducted of the petitioner, the result of which came positive. Further, during investigation, efforts were made to collect the age proof of the prosecutrix, but as the prosecutrix never went to school, the same became difficult. Consequently, a Bone Ossification Test was conducted on 21.09.2023, the report of which was received on 06.10.2023, wherein the estimated age of the prosecutrix was mentioned to be more than 14 years but less than 17 years.

6. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that admittedly the prosecutrix and the petitioner were in a love relationship. He contends that the same is borne out from prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, wherein she has stated that she loves the petitioner and the petitioner also loves her.

7. He submits that the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 CrPC given to the police, has accepted that nothing wrong happened to her while she was with the petitioner and that she had voluntarily, on her own free will, accompanied the petitioner to Agra.

8. Furthermore, in her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted, that she went with the petitioner to Agra of her own will.

9. He further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. All material prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no apprehension that the petitioner will tamper with the evidence.

10. Per Contra, Mr. Tarang Srivastava the learned APP appearing on behalf of the state submits that the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 CrPC has stated that the petitioner had taken the prosecutrix forcefully to Agra. In her examination-in-chief she has testified that petitioner had sexual relations with her.

11. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecutrix supports the co