“The Court cannot ignore the young age of both the applicant as well as the victim,” the Delhi High Court said while granting bail in a POCSO case to a man who has spent over three years in custody, noting the two were in a relationship before the alleged offence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, pointing to the relationship between the two before the incident, the victim’s differing statements, his age of 20 at the time and the more than three years he has spent in custody while the trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence [Vicky @ Vikky v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.].
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the applicant’s third regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by an order dated October 6, 2026. The allegations remain to be tested at trial, and the applicant is presumed innocent until then.
What tipped the balance
The Court began with the victim’s own statements. In her first statement to the police under Section 161 CrPC, recorded on the day she was traced, she said she had left home in anger after being scolded and had no complaint against anyone. A supplementary statement the next day alleged sexual assault by the applicant. The Court observed that the victim had given different statements on different dates.
It also noted from the record that the two had been in a relationship for some months before the incident, and that the victim had posted photographs of the applicant on Instagram and expressed her love for him there. Taking the ages together, 20 for the applicant and 14 for the victim, the Court held:
“The Court cannot ignore the young age of both the applicant as well as the victim. The documents on record show the intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim. Further, in her initial statement the victim stated in categorical terms that she had left the house on her own accord and that she did not want to make any complaint against anyone. These facts cannot be disregarded and serve as mitigating factors which tilts the balance towards grant of bail to the applicant.”
Justice Pushkarna relied on the High Court’s earlier ruling in Praduman v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4620, where bail was granted on similar facts. That judgment, which the order reproduces, had observed that police were filing POCSO cases “at the behest of the family of a girl who object to her friendship and romantic involvement with a young boy”, and had set out the factors laid down in Dharmender Singh v. State for bail under the POCSO Act, including the ages of the victim and the accused, the age gap between them, and whether there appeared to be “tacit approval-in-fact, though not consent-in-law”.
The Court added that the prosecution has cited 19 witnesses, of whom only the victim and her father have been examined, so the trial would take time to conclude. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he and the victim live far apart in different parts of the city.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Adolescents Should Have Romantic Relationships Without Legal Fear
The prosecution’s case
The FIR was registered in July 2023 on a missing complaint by the girl’s father, who said she had left for school one morning and not returned. She was traced two days later. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 363, 368, 376, 328 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Her age was verified as 14 years and 8 months at the time; the applicant was 20 years and 4 months.
In her supplementary statement and at her medical examination, the girl alleged that she went with the applicant to his friend’s house, lost consciousness after being served tea, and was then kept in a locked room and sexually assaulted against her will. The prosecution’s status report states that the DNA profiles of both were found in a mixed profile from a blanket seized at the site, though no male DNA could be generated from the victim’s samples, and that WhatsApp data from the applicant’s phone could not be recovered. The case is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (POCSO), North-West, Rohini Courts, at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The arguments
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the two had been in a relationship for eight to nine months that was known to everyone, and that the victim often posted their pictures on social media. He argued that no drug or intoxicant was found in her blood and that the prosecution’s case that she remained unconscious was not supported by medical evidence. He also pointed out that the victim and her father had already been examined, that the applicant lives in Delhi with his mother and three brothers, holds no passport and has no criminal record.
Counsel for the complainant, the Standing Counsel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, replied that the victim had been made to smell something, so nothing would show in her blood, that her supplementary statement was categorical about the assault, and that the offences were extremely grave and involved a minor. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that consent is irrelevant under the POCSO Act and that the complainant had fully supported the prosecution case.
Conditions of release
The applicant was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the like amount. He must attend every hearing before the trial court, give his addresses and a working mobile number to the investigating officer, report to the local police station every Monday at 9 AM, and must not approach witnesses, tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail.
The Court clarified that its observations are only for deciding the bail application and are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Why the order matters
The order applies the line of Delhi High Court decisions that weigh a prior relationship between a young accused and an adolescent complainant at the bail stage, while accepting that a minor’s consent has no legal effect under the POCSO Act. It treats the relationship, the victim’s first statement, the ages and the long pre-trial custody as mitigating factors for bail only, and leaves the question of guilt to the trial court.
Case Details: Vicky @ Vikky v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. | BAIL APPLN. 3253/2026 | Court: High Court of Delhi | Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna | Date of Order: October 6, 2026 | Outcome: Regular bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety.
Appearances: For the applicant, Advocates Utsav Kumar, Medhavi Tyagi, Devender Kumar, Bikram Vishal Kumar, Laveena Tak, Akshay Sahay and Yash Gupta. For the State, APP Sunil Kumar Gautam. For the complainant (R-2), Anushkaa Arora, Standing Counsel, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
If you know of a child who needs care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.