Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Girish Kathpalia, J
SANJAY CHAUHAN & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-1604/2026
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Bail - Age of victim being 15 years renders consent irrelevant - In bail applications under POCSO, the court must consider the seriousness of offence and vulnerability of minor victim; stage of trial is relevant but not determinative if victim is a minor. (Para 6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Regular Bail - Trial court directed to expedite disposal of sessions case within three months if accused does not seek adjournments. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused/applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 592/2023 under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act. Allegations: The accused used to visit the kiosk of the prosecutrix's father, developed friendship, and on one occasion kissed her and took a picture. He threatened to show it to her parents, then repeatedly called her for sexual favours. The prosecutrix was aged 15 years. The accused had been in custody since 30.12.2023 and the trial was almost concluded. The prosecutrix and her parents had no objection to bail, but the State opposed on ground of minor age.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that since the trial had almost concluded, it would not comment on the nature of the relationship. The age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident was hardly 15 years; the issue of coercion versus voluntary decision (even ignoring age of consent) is for the trial court. In view of the minor age, the court found it not a fit case to grant bail. The application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within three months.
Issues: Whether bail should be granted to an accused under POCSO Act when the victim is a minor and the trial is almost concluded.
Ratio Decidendi: The age of the minor victim is a critical factor; consent is irrelevant in law. Despite the advanced stage of trial, the seriousness of the offence and the vulnerability of the minor outweigh the consideration of prolonged custody. The court declined to intervene in the bail matter but ensured expeditious trial.
Result: Bail application dismissed. Parties: Petitioner (accused) and Respondents (State). No dissenting opinions.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 592/2023 of Police Station Najafgarh for offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act.
2. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he used to visit the kiosk of father of the prosecutrix to purchase cigarettes and that is how he developed friendship with her. Once the prosecutrix was returning home by foot, the accused/applicant suddenly stopped his motorcycle and asked her if he could drop her home. The prosecutrix agreed because of acquaintance with him. At that stage, the accused/applicant kissed her and took a picture. On being asked to delete that picture, the accused/applicant stated that he would show the picture to her parents. After that the accused/applicant repeatedly called her at night for sexual favours. This is extracted from testimony of the prosecutrix before the trial court.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is in custody since 30.12.2023 and the trial has almost concluded, so the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail. It is further submitted that since the trial is proceeding at a slow pace, the accused/applicant be granted bail. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also submits that the prosecutrix and her parents have no objection if the bail is granted to the accused/applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned APP for State assisted by IO/WSI Seema strongly opposes the bail application on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged hardly 15 years at the time of the alleged incident, so even her consent, if at all there was any, is not relevant.
5. In view of the fact that trial has almost concluded, it would not be appropriate for this court to make any observation regarding the nature of relationship between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix. At present, what is to be kept in mind is that age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident was hardly 15 years. The issue as to whether the prosecutrix was coerced into sexual relations or it was her voluntary decision, even if the age of consent is ignored, would be within the domain of the trial court by way of analysis of prosecution evidence. Trial, as mentioned above has almost concluded.
6. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. The present bail application and the accompanying application are dismissed.
7. But the learned trial court is directed to ensure that the entire sessions case, in which the present bail application has been filed, is disposed of within a period of three months from today, provided the accused/applicant does not take any adjournment. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court forthwith.
8. Copy of this order be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for being informed to the accused/applicant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
