Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATEEK JALAN, J.

Raj Mahato – Applicant
Versus
The State Of NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3007 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with Insp. Manish Bhati, P.S.Bhalswa Dairy. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Advocate for the complainant, with the complainant in person.

Anticipatory bail may be granted to a proclaimed offender in exceptional cases, particularly when the accused is young and the alleged offense arises from a purported adolescent relationship where no clear evidence of coercion or criminal intent exists, preventing over-criminalization of youthful, consensual behaviors.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 108 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 67A/67B - Anticipatory bail - Abetment of suicide - Allegations of sexual interactions involving a minor - Adolescent relationships - Factors for bail consideration - Age of the parties and their background are material factors when evaluating the severity of the offence and the necessity of custody - Distinction between consensual interpersonal dynamics and criminal intent. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Proclaimed offender - Discretionary relief - Grant of, in exceptional circumstances - A declaration of an applicant as a proclaimed offender does not impose a total embargo on the consideration of a bail application - The court must weigh personal liberty against the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the flight risk and subsequent cooperation. (Paras 8, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case of abetment to suicide and related sexual offences involving a minor. The allegations stemmed from a long-term interpersonal relationship between two school classmates. Although the applicant was initially declared a proclaimed offender for failing to join the investigation, he subsequently appeared, cooperated, and contended that the relationship was consensual and that the accusations were an afterthought.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while society holds serious concerns regarding the exploitation of minors, the specific developmental context of teenage relationships requires a nuanced application of legal principles to avoid systemic over-criminalization. The court noted the absence of evidence regarding the public circulation of intimate material or direct coercion into the act of suicide.

Issues: The main issues were whether an individual declared as a proclaimed offender is barred from seeking anticipatory bail, and whether the nature of a youthful, adolescent relationship warrants a departure from strictly punitive measures in favor of pre-arrest protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Discretionary relief can be exercised in favour of an accused even if they were previously declared a proclaimed offender in exceptional circumstances, especially considering the age of the accused and the absence of clear criminal coercion or intent. The court stressed that adolescent relationships should be evaluated through a lens that acknowledges the lack of maturity and the potential for long-term impact on the individual's future.

Result: Application allowed; interim protection confirmed subject to conditions.

Table of Content
1. factual context of registration of fir and investigation status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural history and interim orders regarding bail. (Para 4 , 5)
3. new forensic and investigatory findings impacting charges. (Para 6 , 7)
4. summary of rival contentions regarding bail application. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. principles for assessing bail in adolescent relationships under pocso. (Para 11 , 12)
6. court's reasoning for confirming anticipatory bail based on age and lack of evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. final order granting bail with specific conditions. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 98/2025, dated 06.02.2025, registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, District Outer North, Delhi.

A. PROSECUTION CASE AND ORDERS PASSED IN THE APPLICATION

2. The subject FIR was registered on 06.02.2025 in respect of the unfortunate death by suicide of the complainant's daughter. The incident took place on 26.01.2025. As stated in the FIR, the complainant initially did not suspect anyone; however, upon checking the mobile phone of the deceased, it was revealed that she had been in contact with the applicant. The applicant was a classmate of the deceased - they were both students of Class XII in Sarvodaya Co-Ed Vidyalaya No.1, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, at the time of the incident. He and his sister were friends of the deceased and used to visit her home. It was alleged that the applicant had sent objectionable photographs and videos to the deceased on 25.01.2025, and that the two remained in telephonic contact on 26.01.2025 from 05:47 A.M. until the deceased committed suicide in the afternoon. The complainant also produced the mobile phone of the deceased, which contained a video of the applicant putting a mangalsutra on the deceased, alongwith other objectionable photographs and videos. It was, therefore, alleged that the applicant had harassed the deceased, as a result of which she committed suicide.

3. Notice was issued in this application on 08.08.2025, pursuant to which a status report was filed by the prosecution on 22.08.2025. It was stated therein that the mobile phone of the deceased had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”], but the results were awaited. In view of the deceased's date of birth, recorded as 16.07.2007, allegations under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act”], and Sections 67A/67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”], were also added. It was further stated that the applicant had not joined the investigation and had been declared a proclaimed offender on 10.07.2025.

4. By order dated 01.09.2025, this Court granted interim protection against coercive steps, subject to the applicant joining the investigation. The submissions before the Court and reasoning of the Court are extracted hereinbelow:

“3. Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a young boy aged about 18 years and a student of class 12th,having clean antecedents. It is argued that he has been falsely implicated and there is no material to indicate any direct abetment of suicide or that the petitioner forced or harassed the deceased in any manner.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner and the deceased were in a consensual relationship. It is also submitted that there is an unexplained delay in registration of the FIR as the unfortunate incident occurred on 26.01.2025 and the FIR was registered on 06.02.2025. It is stated that the petitioner has given complaints to the DCP seeking call detail records to verify facts, and he is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate fully. The petitioner undertakes to abi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPRATEEK JALAN, J. Raj Mahato – ApplicantVersusThe State Of NCT Of Delhi – RespondentBail Appln. 3007 of 2025Decided On : 15-05-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATEEK JALAN, J.

Raj Mahato – Applicant
Versus
The State Of NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3007 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2026