In cases involving sexual offences against minors, the defense of consensual relationship is legally invalid and inadmissible. When corroborated by evidence of systemic exploitation, forgery of identity documents, and criminal intimidation, such factors necessitate the denial of bail to preserve the sanctity of the trial process.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 137(2), 64(2), 65, 115(2), 351(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Section 6 - Bail application - Sexual offences against a minor - Allegations of repeated physical exploitation, use of fraudulent identification for booking accommodation, and criminal intimidation.

(B) Bail - Principles for grant of - When the victim is a minor, the plea of consent is legally immaterial and void - The court must consider the severity of the allegations, potential for coercion, and availability of prima facie evidence, including forensic materials and witness statements, in determining whether to grant relief during the pre-trial stage. (Paras 8, 9, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant filed for regular bail regarding charges of sexual exploitation and intimidation. The complaint alleged that the applicant engaged in consistent physical relations with a minor, coerced her into participating in a false identity scheme to secure hotel accommodations, and exercised control through the storage of objectionable images and threats of violence. Witnesses and relatives provided corroborating accounts of the abuse and intimidation occurring upon confrontation, while investigative findings included documentation of fake identification documents.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the victim was a minor at the times of the alleged offences. The presence of evidence linking the applicant to the use of fraudulent documents and the testimonies regarding credible threats justified the refusal of bail, as such actions established a serious prima facie case of abuse and manipulation.

Issues: The main issues were the legal validity of the claim of consent in a relationship involving a minor and whether the alleged acts of physical, digital, and verbal coercion warranted the denial of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Consent provided by a minor in cases of sexual exploitation is legally irrelevant, and the systemic abuse coupled with documentary evidence of forgery and intimidation serves as a sufficient basis for denying bail to protect the victim and ensure the judicial process is not hampered.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and foundational facts of the criminal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conflicting contentions regarding consent and criminal liability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. judicial assessment of evidence, witness credibility, and documentation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. bail denial based on nature of accusations and judicial discretion. (Para 13 , 14)
5. final order and formal closing of the judgment. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 02/2026, registered at Police Station Chankyapuri, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/64(2)/65/115(2)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’), Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereafter ‘POCSO Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the status report filed by the State, are that the victim/prosecutrix, along with her parents, had submitted a written complaint against the accused/applicant, Ankit Lakra. In her complaint, the prosecutrix stated that she was acquainted with the applicant and had been in a relationship with him after they had exchanged their Instagram IDs. She alleged that, in the year 2022, the applicant had first established physical relations with her and thereafter used to take her to different hotels on various occasions. As per the allegations, the last such incident had taken place in July, 2025. It was further alleged that the applicant had recorded private photographs and videos of the prosecutrix. On 07.01.2026, the prosecutrix had met the applicant for getting the said photographs and videos deleted from his mobile phone. However, the applicant allegedly refused to delete the same, which led to an altercation between them. At that time, the applicant had allegedly been accompanied by his friend, namely Tushar. The prosecutrix further alleged that the applicant had threatened her by showing a knife, threatened to kill her, and had also slapped her, while Tushar had threatened the friend of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, both of them had fled from the spot, following which the prosecutrix, along with her parents, reached the Police Station and filed the complaint.

3. Thereafter, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and the present FIR was registered. During investigation, the prosecutrix supported and reiterated the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned Magistrate, as well as in the history recorded in her MLC and other statements made during investigation. The applicant was arrested on 08.01.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. The mobile phone of the applicant was seized and sent to FSL, Rohini, and the report thereof is stated to be awaited. The co-accused Tushar was bound down for the offence punishable under Section 351(3) of BNS for allegedly threatening the friend of the prosecutrix. The school records collected during investigation reveal that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 18.02.2008 whereas the date of birth of the applicant is 06.07.2004. It is stated that the main chargesheet has already been filed before the concerned Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the prosecutrix had been in a consensual relationship with the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody for about four months and that the chargesheet in the present case has already been filed. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has recently married a person of her own choice. The learned counsel further contends that when the father of the prosecutrix had been hospitalized, she had sought financial assistance from the applicant and, upon the applicant expressing his inability to provide the same, the present FIR c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis