Victim's Mother's No Objection Leads to Bail for Woman in POCSO Case: Delhi High Court

In a relief that turned heavily on the stand of the complainant family, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a 20-year-old woman accused of sexually assaulting a minor boy under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Manoj Jain allowed the bail application after the victim’s mother conveyed through video-conferencing that she had no objection to the release, provided the accused refrained from any similar act in the future.

A Neighbour’s Allegations and a Mother’s Call

The case arose from FIR No. 0042/2026 registered at Chanakyapuri Police Station under Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (criminal intimidation) and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual assault). The FIR was prompted by a PCR call made by the mother of the 15-year-old victim boy. She alleged that the accused, a neighbour, had called her son to her house in February 2026 and forcibly established sexual contact, later assaulted him at his own residence in March 2026, and threatened him against disclosure.

Custody, Clean Record, and a Young Child

The applicant, a 20-year-old woman and mother of a three-year-old girl, denied the accusations. Through counsel, she contended that the allegations were false and stemmed from a family dispute. She also pointed to the hardship caused to her infant daughter by her incarceration. The charge sheet had already been filed, including the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to Section 164 CrPC). The nominal roll from jail confirmed that the applicant had been in custody for over three and a half months, had no previous criminal involvement, and her jail conduct was satisfactory.

The Mother’s Crucial Stand

During the hearing, the victim’s mother and the victim were brought via video-conferencing. The mother’s statement proved pivotal. The order records:

“...the mother of the victim boy stated that she would have no objection to the grant of bail, provided the applicant is directed to resist from any such act or endeavour in future.”

Coupled with the applicant’s undertaking — communicated on instructions from her own mother who was present in court — to maintain complete distance from the complainant’s family and to shift from her existing residence, the court found it appropriate to grant bail.

Justice Jain also noted the applicant’s young age, clean antecedents, and the duration of custody. The court made it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Conditions Imposed by Court

Bail was granted on the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with a local surety of the same amount. The court imposed strict conditions: the applicant shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates; she shall not contact any witness directly or indirectly; she must provide a mobile number to the investigating officer and keep it operational until the case is disposed of; and she must maintain the promised distance from the complainant family and shift residence.

The order thus balances the protection required under the POCSO Act with the factors of custodial period, family stand, and the accused’s undertaking, while leaving the trial court to decide the case on its merits.