Friendship Doesn't Imply Consent; Minor's Consent Invalid Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Rape Case - 2025-07-24

Legal News & Court Updates.

Friendship Is Not a License for Sexual Intercourse, Minor's Consent Invalid: Delhi HC Denies Bail in POCSO Case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has denied bail to a man accused of repeatedly raping a minor girl, asserting that friendship cannot be misconstrued as consent for sexual intercourse. Justice Girish Kathpalia underscored that even if consent were given, it would be legally invalid as the prosecutrix was a minor.

The bench was hearing a bail application filed by Mohammad Shahid @ Sahid in a case registered under Sections 376 (Rape), 342 (Wrongful Confinement), and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the accused, Mohammad Shahid, a construction labourer, befriended the minor prosecutrix in April 2023. He allegedly lured her to a deserted, under-construction apartment where he raped her and threatened her into silence. The FIR states that the accused continued to rape the girl repeatedly until November 2023.

The accused was arrested, and the case proceeded to trial, where both the prosecutrix and her mother have already testified in support of the prosecution's case.

Key Arguments in Court

Arguments for the Accused (Petitioner):

The counsel for Mohammad Shahid presented two primary arguments for seeking bail:

1. Claim of Majority: The defense contended that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the alleged incidents. This claim was based on a single statement from the mother's testimony where she mentioned getting married in 2000 and giving birth to the prosecutrix within two years.
2. Consensual Relationship: It was argued that the relationship was consensual, citing the portion of the FIR which mentions that the prosecutrix "became friends" with the accused after he wooed her with "sweet talk."

Arguments for the State (Prosecution):

The Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State, vehemently opposed the bail application. He highlighted the gravity of the allegations, which involved the repeated rape of a minor girl over several months.

Court's Firm Rejection of Defense Arguments

Justice Girish Kathpalia systematically dismantled the defense's arguments, refusing to grant bail.

On the Issue of Age:

The Court held that a "single handpicked line" from a witness's testimony cannot be read in isolation, especially at the bail stage. It noted that the prosecution has submitted the prosecutrix's educational records to establish her minority status, which will be formally proven during the trial. The judgment reiterated the established principle that a court cannot conduct a minute examination of evidence while considering a bail plea.

"So far as the argument about the prosecutrix having attained the age of majority is concerned, a single handpicked line from the testimony of her mother cannot be read in isolation of the remaining material on record."

On the Argument of Consent:

The Court delivered a stern rebuke to the argument that friendship implied consent. It clarified the legal position on consent, particularly in cases involving minors.

"As regards the argument of it being a case of consensual relations, merely because a girl befriends a boy, the latter cannot be given liberty to indulge into sexual intercourse with her without her consent. Further, even the consent would not be lawful in the present case because the prosecutrix was minor in age."

The Court further observed that the prosecutrix had explicitly stated in both the FIR and her testimony that the accused had repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with her despite her objections, directly contradicting the claim of a consensual relationship.

Final Decision and Implications

Citing the gravity of the alleged offense, the High Court found it unfit to grant bail and dismissed the application. The decision reinforces the stringent nature of the POCSO Act, which presumes the absence of valid consent from a minor. The judgment serves as a clear judicial reminder that social relationships like friendship cannot be used as a defense or justification for sexual offenses against children.